Your end of season thoughts

[Tim]

2 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Freeman didn't even get more than that now at a younger age. Freeman, prior to the Dodgers, was consistently a 4-5 WAR player. Cabrera was an all time great hitter and put up 6-8 WAR years prior to his final contract at 33 years old. There's no comparison between the 2.

The question you answered was what Freeman would have gotten as a 26 year old if he had more walks, hit more home runs, etc.

[thawv]

21 hours ago, squally1313 said:

Lol BBTV has Morel for Alonso as a 'moderate overpay' by the Cubs. DO IT

I would agree.  It's a very moderate over pay, but I would do it in a split second.  I would put Mervis in the deal, and something else in return from the Mets.  I'm sure they would insist on Mervis to take over 1B

[Cuzi]

6 minutes ago, Tim said:

The question you answered was what Freeman would have gotten as a 26 year old if he had more walks, hit more home runs, etc.

What do I care if one guy gets a walk more while the other guy gets a hit more? If anything I'd probably take the guy getting a hit more because he's driving the runner in from 2nd while the guy who takes his walk doesnt move that runner at all. Their wRC+ is roughly equal. They are both hitting around 30 HRs a year. Soto for his career hits a HR every 21 PA's. Freeman every 25.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Cuzi

[We Got The Whole 9]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

Juan Soto is a better hitter than Freddie Freeman, pretty comfortably, unless you think that Freeman has just found a way to consistently out BABIP him by 80+ points like he has the last two years. Soto has a better K rate, a significantly better walk rate, he hits more home runs, I could go on. Freeman is a better baserunner. Freeman signed his deal going into his age 32 season, and got 6/162. If you're signing Soto as a free agent going into 2025 at his age 26 season, you should expect, based on the above, to pay him significantly more per year than Freeman got, based on production, lack of expected dropoff, and general inflation. So instead of $27/year, you're paying $35/year. And you would assume he wants a longer contract, because all players do. So make it ten years, at $35m/year, and you're looking at $350m. 

The last two years combined:

Freeman - .364 BABIP, best in baseball by 13 points among qualified hitters, 

Soto - .273, fifteenth worst in baseball

I think Freddie Freeman got 60 doubles for a very good reason. He is probably the best at directional hitting without sacrificing quality of contact. Freeman is a 142 hitter with a career BABIP of 344 and a LD rate of 28 v 18 for Soto. Soto has a career GB rate of almost 50% and has put up an LA above 10 once in his career. There should probably be more like a ~40 point difference in BABIP but I think most of the tale is told in those statistics. He definitely has to get that LD rate up to the ~20 and he would see a nice rise in BABIP. He ranked 125th in LD rate.

 

I think your numbers are pretty much spot-on, however. 35 AAV will probably be around where he ends up. Some team might give him more years but I doubt he takes less than 10. He is so bad in LF that I don't think you lose that much overall value moving him to 1B. He should still be a 5 win player on the offense alone for several seasons. 

[Rcal10]

8 minutes ago, thawv said:

I would agree.  It's a very moderate over pay, but I would do it in a split second.  I would put Mervis in the deal, and something else in return from the Mets.  I'm sure they would insist on Mervis to take over 1B

I am moving away from Alonso. I just think a long term deal for him ends poorly. I don’t see him that good in his mid 30’s. And he is going to want want at least 7 years if they plan on signing him. And if they don’t sign him to an extension I would have to lose Morel for 1 year. 

[squally1313]

25 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Based on the history of 1B contracts? Probably something like 8 years with a slight bump in AAV. Say $30M. Call it 8/240.

Freeman got paid through his age 37 season. Matt Olson through 35. No way Soto, the better hitter, has to take a deal that only pays him through age 33.

[thawv]

20 minutes ago, Tim said:

It's mentioned with the McGwire entry

I saw.  There's a lot more than him though.  But that's another topic.

[Cuzi]

5 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Freeman got paid through his age 37 season. Matt Olson through 35. No way Soto, the better hitter, has to take a deal that only pays him through age 33.

It's also Freemans second contract, which Soto would be entitled to after this one expired.

You keep downplaying Freeman as if the gap between him and Soto was some great chasm, even before Freeman's last 2 seasons. Because if we are including these last 2 years, then Freeman > Soto.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Cuzi

[squally1313]

1 minute ago, Rcal10 said:

I am moving away from Alonso. I just think a long term deal for him ends poorly. I don’t see him that good in his mid 30’s. And he is going to want want at least 7 years if they plan on signing him. And if they don’t sign him to an extension I would have to lose Morel for 1 year. 

I realize that I'm already doing pretty good in these arguments but I want to step back and take a slightly less nuanced approach and say that I absolutely do not give a single horsefeathers about the potential ramifications of the Ricketts paying Pete Alonso $22m in like, 2031 to be a mediocre first baseman. First off, not my money. Second off, you don't give these contracts expecting to extract positive WAR/dollar value every single year of the deal. Pete Alonso will be 29 next year. If he comes here and mashes dongs for 4-5 years during this very openly stated competitive window, I could care less if he turns into 2018 Chris Davis in 2031 and 2032. We'll figure that out later. 

[thawv]

3 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I am moving away from Alonso. I just think a long term deal for him ends poorly. I don’t see him that good in his mid 30’s. And he is going to want want at least 7 years if they plan on signing him. And if they don’t sign him to an extension I would have to lose Morel for 1 year. 

I'd do no more than 5 years of Alonso.  I have a list of about a dozen 45 FV guys that they can use to trade for him.  He would be worth any 3 of them using surplus value.  If they don't extend him, we lose 3 below average prospects.  They have to move some of them anyway.   I'm not in love with Morel's game.  He's fun and all, but he's to emotional and too much of a wildly free swinger.  I prefer the temperament of a Nico.  I love his game. 

I'd like to move Caissie to 1B as he's too slow, and the OF is packed with players.  And his stick is big.  Maybe Alonso can be the stop gap guy at first, and get a comp pick for him if there's no extension.  

[squally1313]

2 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

It's also Freemans second contract, which Soto would be entitled to after this one expired.

What do you mean by 'entitled to'? Freeman signed an 8 year deal that bought out 3 years of arbitration after having one good year (which came after 2 bad ones). Juan Soto making like $25m next year in his last year of team control and being incredible his entire career is not at all the same situation. 

[Bertz]

2 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I am moving away from Alonso. I just think a long term deal for him ends poorly. I don’t see him that good in his mid 30’s. And he is going to want want at least 7 years if they plan on signing him. And if they don’t sign him to an extension I would have to lose Morel for 1 year. 

I like Alonso a lot, enough that I probably would at least consider giving up something like Morel, but yeah I wouldn't be keen on extending him.

I actually think in general I want the org to be more comfortable just having guys for a year or two and then saying goodbye.  I want them to do it now with Bellinger and I'd like them to do it again next year with whoever is at 1B (unless it's Soto, extend the horsefeathers out of Soto).  This is IMO one of the many smart things the Dodgers do.

[Cuzi]

5 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I actually think in general I want the org to be more comfortable just having guys for a year or two and then saying goodbye.  I want them to do it now with Bellinger and I'd like them to do it again next year with whoever is at 1B (unless it's Soto, extend the horsefeathers out of Soto).  This is IMO one of the many smart things the Dodgers do.

Do the Dodgers really only sign guys for a year or 2, though? Maybe with role players, but even then they've had Chris Taylor around since 2017. Feel like they dont keep or replace players any more than any other team. They just spend their money AND develop players, while the Cubs are acting like it has to be one or the other.

[squally1313]

5 minutes ago, Bertz said:

 

I actually think in general I want the org to be more comfortable just having guys for a year or two and then saying goodbye.  I want them to do it now with Bellinger and I'd like them to do it again next year with whoever is at 1B (unless it's Soto, extend the horsefeathers out of Soto).  This is IMO one of the many smart things the Dodgers do.

In theory, yes, but until we catch up to the Dodger's ability to churn out talented players from their system, I don't think we can take the same attitude on free agency and expect to keep up.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Just now, Cuzi said:

Do the Dodgers really only sign guys for a year or 2, though? Maybe with role players, but even then they've had Chris Taylor around since 2017. Feel like they dont keep or replace players any more than any other team. They just spend their money AND develop players, while the Cubs are acting like it has to be one or the other.

Trea Turner is probably the best example, but I'm not seeing that being something they do habitually.  They are willing to let guys walk  in general, beyond the short term of Turner you have Seager, Ryu, Jansen, Justin Turner, Pederson, Bellinger.

[thawv]

Positional adjustment be damned for this conversation.  If Soto is making 400 million a year as a corner OF'er, but is really costing the team a lot of runs defensively, and likely losses, how would moving him to 1B where he causes less damage defensively be bad for team results?  Or better yet, make him a DH were he can cause no damage at all defensively. 

Edited October 4, 2023 by thawv

[Cuzi]

Just now, thawv said:

Positional adjustment be damned for this conversation.  If Soto is making 400 million a year as a corner OF'er, but is really costing the team a lot of runs defensively, and likely losses, how would moving him to 1B where he causes less damage defensively be bad for team results?

Because now you have a $400M first baseman and have to build a team around that albatross.

[We Got The Whole 9]

4 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Trea Turner is probably the best example, but I'm not seeing that being something they do habitually.  They are willing to let guys walk  in general, beyond the short term of Turner you have Seager, Ryu, Jansen, Justin Turner, Pederson, Bellinger.

I'm thinking maybe he was lumping Machado in with that, but he was just a 2 month rental 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

1 minute ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I'm thinking maybe he was lumping Machado in with that, but he was just a 2 month rental 

Yeah, they've done their fair share of that with rentals too, Machado and Scherzer being the two biggest I can recall.

[CubinNY]

4 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Because now you have a $400M first baseman and have to build a team around that albatross.

No, you don't. come on. You have whatever is left on his contract at the time of his hypothetical cliff dive, which may or may not happen after he's hit his 300th HR in a Cub uniform.  

[thawv]

2 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Because now you have a $400M first baseman and have to build a team around that albatross.

So here's the choices for actual on the field results.  Have a LF'er with a fantastic stick but costs the team actual runs because he's so bad defensively, or that same player being at 1B causing less damage with his glove for the same amount of money  Or better yet, DH'ing so he has ZERO negative value on the team.  I'd put him at the position that he costs the team less runs because of his glove.  Because either way, his salary is the same. 

[gocubs218]

6 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Because now you have a $400M first baseman and have to build a team around that albatross.

Imagine thinking giving Juan Soto 400 million is an albatross, regardless of where he plays. 

[Cuzi]

2 minutes ago, thawv said:

So here's the choices for actual on the field results.  Have a LF'er with a fantastic stick but costs the team actual runs because he's so bad defensively, or that same player being at 1B causing less damage with his glove for the same amount of money  Or better yet, DH'ing so he has ZERO negative value on the team.  I'd put him at the position that he costs the team less runs because of his glove.  Because either way, his salary is the same. 

The mere fact of paying him based on a position he can't play is negative value to the team.

[Rcal10]

28 minutes ago, thawv said:

I'd do no more than 5 years of Alonso.  I have a list of about a dozen 45 FV guys that they can use to trade for him.  He would be worth any 3 of them using surplus value.  If they don't extend him, we lose 3 below average prospects.  They have to move some of them anyway.   I'm not in love with Morel's game.  He's fun and all, but he's to emotional and too much of a wildly free swinger.  I prefer the temperament of a Nico.  I love his game. 

I'd like to move Caissie to 1B as he's too slow, and the OF is packed with players.  And his stick is big.  Maybe Alonso can be the stop gap guy at first, and get a comp pick for him if there's no extension.  

I don’t like 4 or 5 years of Morel for one year of Alonso. If they trade Morel for him they have to extend him. If they can do so for 6 years I would be fine with him. Rumor was he was looking for 10. I think at 10 you will be stuck with 4 very overpaid seasons. 
If the Mets would find 2 or 3 45FV prospects they would take in an Alonso package I would be ok with that, even if they didn’t extend him. I just don’t want him for 10 years. 6 would be a sweet spot. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

1 minute ago, thawv said:

So here's the choices for actual on the field results.  Have a LF'er with a fantastic stick but costs the team actual runs because he's so bad defensively, or that same player being at 1B causing less damage with his glove for the same amount of money  Or better yet, DH'ing so he has ZERO negative value on the team.  I'd put him at the position that he costs the team less runs because of his glove.  Because either way, his salary is the same. 

We don't know that he wouldn't be absolutely horrendous at 1B too though. See Vlad.