I don’t think we are good enough yet.

[Jssanto]

Who is our back up third baseman?

Who is our back up first baseman?

who plays second for a month if Hoerner can’t start until May?

We have pitchers in the mid and end range (Imanaga and Steele a 2, Taillon a 3, Boyd/Asaad/Rea maybe 5s, and Brown/Killion/Wicks in that 6 - 8 range. But it seems to me we still need a true #1 pitcher or at least another #2 or 3 guy.

Is there a breakout guy on the roster?

[Bertz]

I think it's definitely important to keep the calendar in perspective.  Roughly half of the Top 50 free agents heading into the winter are still on the board, and a lot of guys who would fill the role of e.g. backup 3rd baseman wouldn't even make such a list.  If you compare this offseason to last, Shota Imanaga was signed last Thursday, then the Michael Busch trade was Saturday.  Hector Neris is two weeks from today, and Cody Bellinger is more than a week out.

That said, I wouldn't expect a ton of impact from this point onward.  Some of that is for bad reason: Tom Ricketts is cheap.  Some of that is for good reason: Iowa is pretty legitimately loaded, and you do want to allow some opportunity for those kids to percolate up through the year.  But I would say there's a possibility the team adds an impact SP from here, but anything else will clearly be complimentary pieces.  A solid closer (probably one of the old guys) and two bench bats.

Where that nets out is likely a team that projects to win the division by 2-3 games without that impact SP or 4-5 games if they do add him.  Paired with the talent at Iowa I think that's a legitimately good spot to be in, but it also yet again feels like a missed opportunity to pull further away from the rest of the division.  We've all seen the Brewers make quick work of a 3 game projected advantage before.

[CubinNY]

All and all Jed’s had a pretty decent offseason. They got a star and pitching depth. They’re still a little short on the bench and don’t have #1 starter unless someone really steps up. But they have to be division favorites. 

[Crusader]

On 1/13/2025 at 8:24 AM, Jssanto said:

(1) Who is our back up third baseman?

(2) Who is our back up first baseman?

(3) who plays second for a month if Hoerner can’t start until May?

(4) We have pitchers in the mid and end range (Imanaga and Steele a 2, Taillon a 3, Boyd/Asaad/Rea maybe 5s, and Brown/Killion/Wicks in that 6 - 8 range. But it seems to me we still need a true #1 pitcher or at least another #2 or 3 guy.

(5) Is there a breakout guy on the roster?

(1) back up 3b will be some combination of = berti, workman, and brujan

(2) back up 1b = probably Tucker at this point (and Seiya will play RF)

(3) 2b for a month if Nico is out = Berti/Brujan

(4) Boyd is not a number 5. Dude can be like a top 35-40 pitcher. He's basically another number 2/3. Not sure we need a true number 1 if our rotation is just talented and we have lots of depth in case of injury.

(5) A full season of PCA? Workman being a serviceable backup with good defense and LH power? A full season of Tucker, who was dominate coming off a shortened season with an injury? Amaya turning the corner and continuing off his hot 2nd half? A full season of Hodge? Nate Pearson continuing his hot 2nd half? Jack Kneely continuing to develop?

There's lots of talent on the roster. Just depends how a lot of things go. It's definitely a more talented team than last year.

Edited January 27, 2025 by Crusader

[BKHoo]

Every team needs a true #1.  That’s about not aiming high — trying to win a mediocre division versus trying to win a World Series. 

[Stratos]

41 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

All and all Jed’s had a pretty decent offseason. They got a star and pitching depth. They’re still a little short on the bench and don’t have #1 starter unless someone really steps up. But they have to be division favorites. 

Steele is a #1 starter IMO, but I don't think that matters anyways, more important is the strength of the rotation as a whole and the top 3-4 guys for playoff purposes.  They probably needed to add another above-average SP this winter.  Boyd looked very good last year so we'll see how he does, he won't give the innings though.  They pounced on him quickly so must like him a lot.

Jed's done pretty well so far, we need to keep adding.

[Stratos]

5 minutes ago, BKHoo said:

Every team needs a true #1.  That’s about not aiming high — trying to win a mediocre division versus trying to win a World Series. 

Wouldn't the strength of the top 4 SP matter more than the strength of your best SP, even for playoff purposes?  I'd rather have four #2 types than a #1, a #3, and a bunch of BORPs.

Anyways, Steele is a #1.  You don't need to have impressive K/9 to be a #1, ask Greg Maddux.  Steele doesn't give up runs and that's all that matters.

[mul21]

12 hours ago, Stratos said:

Wouldn't the strength of the top 4 SP matter more than the strength of your best SP, even for playoff purposes?  I'd rather have four #2 types than a #1, a #3, and a bunch of BORPs.

Anyways, Steele is a #1.  You don't need to have impressive K/9 to be a #1, ask Greg Maddux.  Steele doesn't give up runs and that's all that matters.

Greg Maddux was top 10 in strikeouts 7 times in his career.  Please stop making things up about him not throwing hard or having great stuff.  His last few years at diminished velocity were not who he was most of his career.

[We Got The Whole 9]

56 minutes ago, mul21 said:

Greg Maddux was top 10 in strikeouts 7 times in his career.  Please stop making things up about him not throwing hard or having great stuff.  His last few years at diminished velocity were not who he was most of his career.

That's because he was racking up 250 innings a year. Was he top 10 in K9 or K%?

 

Its pretty crazy looking at Maddux stats, how his BB% absolutely plummeted once he got with Mazzone.

 

I feel plenty comfortable with Steele fronting the rotation for the next few years.  He has pitched like an Ace should.

Edited January 27, 2025 by We Got The Whole 9

[JBears79]

After the Pressley trade, i'm pretty comfortable with our bullpen but I'm terrified of the bench right now though. I think its pretty obvious they want to leave spots open for young guys like Mo Baller, Cassie and Alcantara to win in the long run but my god our bench is atrocious right now.  

Edited January 27, 2025 by JBears79

[Stratos]

4 hours ago, mul21 said:

Greg Maddux was top 10 in strikeouts 7 times in his career.  Please stop making things up about him not throwing hard or having great stuff.  His last few years at diminished velocity were not who he was most of his career.

Maddux never threw hard and never had a high K/9.

[Bertz]

2 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Maddux never threw hard and never had a high K/9.

Nope.

Maddux threw 92 when he was young, which by early 90's standards was well above average.

Similarly his K rate was 18.9% from 91-01.  The league K rate at that time was 16.2%

 

[Stratos]

2 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Nope.

Maddux threw 92 when he was young, which by early 90's standards was well above average.

Similarly his K rate was 18.9% from 91-01.  The league K rate at that time was 16.2%

 

Maddux did not have well above average velo through most of the 90s.  Maddux wasn't an ace because of his velocity or K rate.  He was elite at other things.

The point is if Steele had an 11 k/9 and threw 97 mph with the same ERA more people would call him an ace, which is ridiculous.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/did-greg-maddux-ever-throw-hard/
 

Quote

Understandably, some may read that and wonder how a pitcher clocked in the high 80s who touches 91 mph can be described as throwing “extremely hard.” But that’s worth it’s own explanation. The radar guns of the early 1980s were much different from what’s used now. In the early 1980s, there was the SpeedGun and there was the JUGS gun. The first generation of Stalker guns hadn’t arrived yet, and the Stalker IIs weren’t going to become prevalent for nearly two decades.

As we explained in a story a couple of years ago, each generation of radar guns improved on the generation before that, which also meant they kept picking up the ball closer to release point. The SpeedGun, despite its name, was viewed as the “slow gun” of the time. It picked up the ball closer to the plate than the JUGS, so the same pitch would have a 1-2 mph slower reading on the SpeedGun than the JUGS.

 

But the JUGS itself was slower than the Stalker Is that arrived later, and the Stalker IIs had an extra mph on the Stalker Is. And the Statcast numbers used now are calibrated to when the ball leaves the pitcher’s hand, which adds another mph or so.

The best guess is that the high-80s/touching 91 mph report is on a JUGS. Years later, scout Doug Mapson told Baseball America founder Allan Simpson for the Ultimate Draft Book that Maddux was 85-87 on the slow gun and could touch 91. With a JUGS gun, that’s a reading that is 3-4 mph slower than a Statcast reading. So think of that 91 as 95 mph in modern measures.

 

Quote

For younger baseball fans, 95 mph does still sound rather routine for a starting pitcher, but in 1984, that was exceptional velocity. The overall velocity in the game is something that’s changed dramatically over the past couple of decades. The average fastball velocity for a starting pitcher in 2008 (the first year of Statcast pitch tracking) was 91.2 mph. Now it’s 93.4 mph. For all MLB pitchers, it’s increased from 91.4 mph in 2008 to 93.7 in 2024. And that’s all on the exact same scale, comparing apples to apples.

I’m not really posting this to come down on either side of the Maddux argument, just an interesting article that provides some context. So if his typical range 1984 translates to 89-91 (topping out at 95) on a modern gun, and the average fastball in 2008 was 91.4, by 80s/90s standards his velocity was probably average to slightly above average assuming velocities have been steadily increasing over time in a similar manner as they did from 2008-2024.

[BKHoo]

I guess Steele is a #1 or can be considered one, but wow we’d look good if he was our #2.  

[Jssanto]

Good point about not really needing a true and definite #1 if you have multiple 2s and 3s. Sort of a front loading of your staff.

[squally1313]

ZIPs is done with everyone besides the Padres, so thought it'd be good to see where we stack up compared to the NL. This is me typing numbers from the graphic into excel and trying to note key pickups that weren't considered, almost definitely missing players and fat fingered numbers here and there, but....

• Cubs: 48.6 (less Pressly)
• Reds: 32.6
• Brewers: 42.8
• Pirates: 36.1
• Cardinals: 35.2
• Braves: 53.1 (less Profar)
• Mets: 43.4 (less Minter)
• Phillies: 42.2
• DBacks: 43.7 (less Burnes)
• Dodgers: 56.5 (less like 6 awesome players)

It's basically Dodgers (huge gap), Braves (pretty good gap), and then us, with the Brewers/Mets/Dbacks/(small gap) Phillies a few wins behind. King or Cease would give us a couple more (4ish over Assad's 1.5ish). Ultimately not an elite team but certainly expectations should be to make the playoffs, realistically as the division winner. 

[Rcal10]

8 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

ZIPs is done with everyone besides the Padres, so thought it'd be good to see where we stack up compared to the NL. This is me typing numbers from the graphic into excel and trying to note key pickups that weren't considered, almost definitely missing players and fat fingered numbers here and there, but....

• Cubs: 48.6 (less Pressly)
• Reds: 32.6
• Brewers: 42.8
• Pirates: 36.1
• Cardinals: 35.2
• Braves: 53.1 (less Profar)
• Mets: 43.4 (less Minter)
• Phillies: 42.2
• DBacks: 43.7 (less Burnes)
• Dodgers: 56.5 (less like 6 awesome players)

It's basically Dodgers (huge gap), Braves (pretty good gap), and then us, with the Brewers/Mets/Dbacks/(small gap) Phillies a few wins behind. King or Cease would give us a couple more (4ish over Assad's 1.5ish). Ultimately not an elite team but certainly expectations should be to make the playoffs, realistically as the division winner. 

Yep. If they did pull off a trade for King and Suarez I would say they are exactly what they said they wanted to be, a team who projects to a 90 win season. Maybe even a #2 team in the NL. 

[Bertz]

8 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

ZIPs is done with everyone besides the Padres, so thought it'd be good to see where we stack up compared to the NL. This is me typing numbers from the graphic into excel and trying to note key pickups that weren't considered, almost definitely missing players and fat fingered numbers here and there, but....

• Cubs: 48.6 (less Pressly)
• Reds: 32.6
• Brewers: 42.8
• Pirates: 36.1
• Cardinals: 35.2
• Braves: 53.1 (less Profar)
• Mets: 43.4 (less Minter)
• Phillies: 42.2
• DBacks: 43.7 (less Burnes)
• Dodgers: 56.5 (less like 6 awesome players)

It's basically Dodgers (huge gap), Braves (pretty good gap), and then us, with the Brewers/Mets/Dbacks/(small gap) Phillies a few wins behind. King or Cease would give us a couple more (4ish over Assad's 1.5ish). Ultimately not an elite team but certainly expectations should be to make the playoffs, realistically as the division winner. 

I suspect when ZiPS does their full run that Dodgers/Braves gap will close a decent amount.  Even with the Dodgers adding Sasaki and Teoscar since that run, the IP totals for the rotation in the Fangraphs depth charts are laughably optimistic.

That said I do otherwise think that feels right.  Braves and Dodgers are the two best teams in the league (probably either league), and we're as good as anyone not in the NL outside of those two.  Because of the sorry state of the NL Central we've hopefully got a fairly direct path to a playoff spot.

[squally1313]

10 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I suspect when ZiPS does their full run that Dodgers/Braves gap will close a decent amount.  Even with the Dodgers adding Sasaki and Teoscar since that run, the IP totals for the rotation in the Fangraphs depth charts are laughably optimistic.

It's Sasaki and Teoscar and Scott and Yates and Kim, but yeah, stacking up this kind of talent diminishes the return a little bit. 

It's also fine, I was under no delusions we were going to put together a roster that was going to compete on paper with them. We can certainly compete in a 7 game series, even if that's more so just the nature of baseball than any sort of roster construction result. 

You shouldn't give Hoyer any credit for the Brewers and Cardinals essentially sitting out the offseason, but it certainly helps. The Michael King article this morning touches on it, but if he sticks the landing on one of those pitchers because we're the non-Dodgers contender with money left and we can solve other teams financial problems, there's maybe a little credit there. 

[muntjack]

Since adding Tucker (and especially with no extension)  I've held that Jed simply has to be exploring trades for a TOR pitcher ala King or Cease.  With that move, they're in the same league as the Braves.  

[squally1313]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

ZIPs is done with everyone besides the Padres, so thought it'd be good to see where we stack up compared to the NL. This is me typing numbers from the graphic into excel and trying to note key pickups that weren't considered, almost definitely missing players and fat fingered numbers here and there, but....

• Cubs: 48.6 (less Pressly)
• Reds: 32.6
• Brewers: 42.8
• Pirates: 36.1
• Cardinals: 35.2
• Braves: 53.1 (less Profar)
• Mets: 43.4 (less Minter)
• Phillies: 42.2
• DBacks: 43.7 (less Burnes)
• Dodgers: 56.5 (less like 6 awesome players)

It's basically Dodgers (huge gap), Braves (pretty good gap), and then us, with the Brewers/Mets/Dbacks/(small gap) Phillies a few wins behind. King or Cease would give us a couple more (4ish over Assad's 1.5ish). Ultimately not an elite team but certainly expectations should be to make the playoffs, realistically as the division winner. 

Padres just posted on Zips at 40.2, with Cease coming in at 3.8 and King at 3.8. 

[KCCub]

5 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Padres just posted on Zips at 40.2, with Cease coming in at 3.8 and King at 3.8. 

Love the breakdown, thanks for putting in the work!

[Rcal10]

Since Cease cost more and probably is less likely to sign an extension, would he cost less than King in a trade? Or do you suppose asking price is similar? 

[Jason Ross]

11 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Since Cease cost more and probably is less likely to sign an extension, would he cost less than King in a trade? Or do you suppose asking price is similar? 

An extension should not be taken into account on trade value since the contract either player would sign is a different transaction. As of now, the Padres and any team acquiring either are trading one year of control. 

I would assume King would be slightly less expensive via trade, however,. as the perceived value of Cease is likely more due to track record. Though I'm not sure it's a massive difference.