Random trade speculation

[Rcal10]

34 minutes ago, mk49 said:

There are plenty of articles about trading Seiya.  Just Google it.  IMO, there's no way the Cubs are going to trade him.

OK, I found a few for you.

https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/report-cubs-could-trade-mlb-233122779.html

https://www.si.com/mlb/cardinals/onsi/cardinals-rumors-st-louis-surprisingly-linked-to-cubs-seiya-suzuki-pat3

https://www.chicitysports.com/chicago-cubs-seiya-suzuki-trade-deadline-castillo-mariners-yankees-phillies/

I meant people here talking about it. I agree they aren’t trading him and should not trade him. I would trade Shaw and a lower prospect for Hancock and Ayers and Assad for Detmers. Then see about dealing Alcantara for the best pen arm they can get. That would be a crazy good TDL IMO. It would help now and give them the makings of a good rotation for the next few years. 

[mk49]

22 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I meant people here talking about it. I agree they aren’t trading him and should not trade him. I would trade Shaw and a lower prospect for Hancock and Ayers and Assad for Detmers. Then see about dealing Alcantara for the best pen arm they can get. That would be a crazy good TDL IMO. It would help now and give them the makings of a good rotation for the next few years. 

You didn't read my post correctly.  I said "not on this forum".

Yeah, it'll be very cool to get both Hancock and Detmers.  I don't want to trade Ayers, though.

[Rcal10]

Just now, mk49 said:

You didn't read my post correctly.  I said "not on this forum".

Yeah, it'll be very cool to get both Hancock and Detmers.  I don't want to trade Ayers, though.

I would drive him to the airport. This is the problem with fans. The idea of selling high on someone sounds good until it can actually happen and then no one wants to trade a guy doing well. I wouldn’t think twice about trading Ayers for a controlled pitcher. 

[mk49]

Just now, Rcal10 said:

I would drive him to the airport. This is the problem with fans. The idea of selling high on someone sounds good until it can actually happen and then no one wants to trade a guy doing well. I wouldn’t think twice about trading Ayers for a controlled pitcher. 

I wouldn't drive him.😁  I would trade Mo, if that works the Angels.

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

I would drive him to the airport. This is the problem with fans. The idea of selling high on someone sounds good until it can actually happen and then no one wants to trade a guy doing well. I wouldn’t think twice about trading Ayers for a controlled pitcher. 

25 y/o hitting well in A and AA doesn't impress me.  I'm really not sure what the Cubs or teams actually think of Ayers tool-wise, but odds are he's not good enough to worry much about if traded.  He very likely doesn't turn into anyone much better than Amaya in overall value as an MLB player, so maybe 2.0 WAR as a full-timer and even less if playing just 81 games, maybe 2.5 WAR in a better year, and could easily do worse than Amaya.

We have Amaya and Mo, so he's tradeable.  Even a guy like Kelly cost only around 6m AAV on the free agent market, so you're not losing a ton.

Poker analogy is the Cubs have a good hand this season, not a great hand not a mediocre hand, so push some good prospect chips in this deadline but don't go all-in.  Anyone outside Shaw and Wiggins I wouldn't hesitate on, and even one of those guys could go in the right deal.  I suspect the trade prices will be sky high again this year with so many teams still in the hunt.

[Geographyhater8888]

22 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

One of these is Edwin Cabrera last year, and the other is Reid Detmers now:

Player A: 27.6 % K%, 7.5 BB%, 4.05 ERA, 3.32 xERA, 3.27 FIP, 3.67 xFIP
Player B: 25.8 K%, 8.3 BB%, 3.53 ERA, 4.05 xERA, 3.83 FIP, 3.62 xFIP

And just for comparison, here is Joe Ryan this year:
27.8 K%, 5.3 BB%, 3.38 ERA, 3.47 xERA, 3.42 FIP, 3.42 xFIP

Out of curiosity, why is xFIP considered a better metric to xERA. Theoretically 2 pitchers with the same number of innings, strikeouts and walks could have identical xFIPS even if pitcher A gives up 8 fly balls and all of them are 450 foot home runs and while pitcher B gives up 8 275 foot shallow fly outs (extreme example and maybe I’m wrong). It doesn’t adjust for hard contact. I assume it’s a more predictive model?
 

Taillon is underperforming his xFIP by almost 1.7 runs, because a lot of the home runs he allows are 400+ foot bombs. Ben Brown is the polar opposite for what it’s worth, although a 3.5 xFIP is very solid. 

Edited yesterday at 11:33 AM by Geographyhater8888

[Bertz]

6 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Out of curiosity, why is xFIP considered a better metric to xERA. Theoretically 2 pitchers with the same number of innings, strikeouts and walks could have identical xFIPS even if pitcher A gives up 8 fly balls and all of them are 450 foot home runs and while pitcher B gives up 8 275 foot shallow fly outs (extreme example and maybe I’m wrong). It doesn’t adjust for hard contact. I assume it’s a more predictive model?
 

Taillon is underperforming his xFIP by almost 1.7 runs, because a lot of the home runs he allows are 400+ foot bombs. Ben Brown is the polar opposite for what it’s worth, although a 3.5 xFIP is very solid. 

A pitcher is, broadly speaking, not doing anything different to determine whether a ball in the air is hit 300 or 400 or 500 feet

Edited yesterday at 11:38 AM by Bertz

[Jason Ross]

20 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Out of curiosity, why is xFIP considered a better metric to xERA. Theoretically 2 pitchers with the same number of innings, strikeouts and walks could have identical xFIPS even if pitcher A gives up 8 fly balls and all of them are 450 foot home runs and while pitcher B gives up 8 275 foot shallow fly outs. It doesn’t adjust for hard contact. I assume it’s a more predictive model?
 

Taillon is underperforming his xFIP by almost 1.7 runs, because a lot of the home runs he allows are 400+ foot bombs. Ben Brown is the polar opposite for what it’s worth, although a 3.5 xFIP is very solid. 

ERA and FIP are ultimately attempting to do the same thing but are doing it differently foundationally. Fundamentally, the belief of FIP is in it's name: Fielding Independent Pitching. It's belief is that once the ball makes contact with the bat, the pitcher no longer controls the outcome if it lands in the field of play (home runs are a pitcher's fault in FIP). It's belief is that a pitcher shouldn't benefit statistically from Dansby Swanson at SS much like a pitcher shouldn't be penalized for having the Mets' infield. 

xERA has a different belief: it suggests pitchers do control the quality of contact against them. It takes statcast data into account. Which may not necessarily give a pitcher credit for their defense, but does take the damage done against that pitcher some consideration. 

Understanding what each is attempting to do is key in understanding what it's attempting to show us. I prefer a broad spectrum look; if you pick one data point you tend to ignore the full picture. There are ways to beat xERA and xFIP. Defined ways. A good way to beat xFIP? Get a lot of ground balls and don't walk guys. xFIP loves a strikeout but a good way to eliminate runs is to keep the ball on the ground and kill two with one swing. We know that pitchers can control ground ball rates and this is a relative blind spot for xFIP which is concerned with strikeouts, walks and home runs.

It's why I posted ERA, xERA, FIP and xFIP. You get a look at raw data (ERA, FIP) and then we can add in the x which adds league data to contextualize. When things are in relative agreement it's a good sign things are going well and that there isn't funny business going in. If one data point is sticking out, we can dive deeper to figure out why. Is it trying to tell the real story or is it seeing ghosts?

Where do I sit? Kind of in the middle. I do think there are ways to beat xFIP as I do think there are ways pitchers can control some of the quality of contact they give up. If you induce a lot of chase you can induce a lot of weak contact. It's a risky profile as it requires you to throw not-strikes but get hitters to swing and make contact with a lot of not-strikes. If you start throwing a lot of strikes it can go sideways quick. If you don't get guys to chase as much (loss of shape, lack of command) it goes sideways quick, But there are pitchers like Tyler Rogers who have made a career of it. 

[Geographyhater8888]

12 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

ERA and FIP are ultimately attempting to do the same thing but are doing it differently foundationally. Fundamentally, the belief of FIP is in it's name: Fielding Independent Pitching. It's belief is that once the ball makes contact with the bat, the pitcher no longer controls the outcome if it lands in the field of play (home runs are a pitcher's fault in FIP). It's belief is that a pitcher shouldn't benefit statistically from Dansby Swanson at SS much like a pitcher shouldn't be penalized for having the Mets' infield. 

xERA has a different belief: it suggests pitchers do control the quality of contact against them. It takes statcast data into account. Which may not necessarily give a pitcher credit for their defense, but does take balls into play that are not a home run into account. 

Understanding what each is attempting to do is key in understanding what it's attempting to show us. I prefer a broad spectrum look; if you pick one data point you tend to ignore the full picture. There are ways to beat xERA and xFIP. Defined ways. A good way to beat xFIP? Get a lot of ground balls and don't walk guys. xFIP loves a strikeout but a good way to eliminate runs is to keep the ball on the ground and kill two with one swing. 

It's why I posted ERA, xERA, FIP and xFIP. When things are in agreement it's a good sign things are going well. If one data point is sticking out, we can dive deeper to figure out why. 

I understand how they work. In a vacuum, do you prefer xFIP or zERA. Obviously you want to look at every metric, but in the spirit of my question I’m curious. 

Also, is the Cubs 8 point gap in wOBA to xWOBA predicative of the offense due for regression or does their batted ball data suggest that what they’re doing is sustainable?

Edited yesterday at 11:54 AM by Geographyhater8888

[Bertz]

Among guys who have given up at least 10 dongs this year, this is the average those homeruns were hit.  Taillon sits 33rd between Cristopher Sanchez (!!) and Tarik Skubal (!!!).

Taillon has gotten very unlucky this year.  The problem is that he's also pitched poorly, and then gotten unlucky on top of that.  It's the same reasons that despite his 3.68 ERA last year Taillon was viewed as a #5 starter that ideally we'd find a way to replace.  You can't just choose whether you look at the ERA or the peripherals depending on which tells a worse story.

[Jason Ross]

14 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

I understand how they work. In a vacuum, do you prefer xFIP or zERA. Obviously you want to look at every metric, but in the spirit of my question I’m curious. 

Also, is the Cubs 8 point gap in wOBA to xWOBA predicative of the offense due for regression or does their batted ball data suggest that what they’re doing is sustainable?

First off an 8 point difference in wOBA to xwOBA is entirely a non-factor. That's essentially the same thing. It's like thinking a .280 batting average is different than a .288. Worry about big differences. Then once again, worry about the why. 

Secondly, as stated, I prefer a broad spectrum look. I said that for a reason; when we pick a statistic we like more, we get blinded. When we pull up fangraphs, all those datapoints are right next to each other, there's no reason to stare at one over another. I prefer each in different situations. So I don't have an answer as to which I prefer. It's best to look at everything in conjunction. 

Pitching, especially, is just not as easily boiled down to a single data point. I'm far more willing to "silver-bullet" approach offense down to wRC+. I think offense is just easier to track, it's ahead of pitching in terms of statistics, and I think it's far less nebulous. As well, it's got a massive sample size that evens things out a bit more. 

[Geographyhater8888]

4 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

First off an 8 point difference in wOBA to xwOBA is entirely a non-factor. That's essentially the same thing. It's like thinking a .280 batting average is different than a .288. Worry about big differences. Then once again, worry about the why. 

Secondly, as stated, I prefer a broad spectrum look. I said that for a reason; when we pick a statistic we like more, we get blinded. When we pull up fangraphs, all those datapoints are right next to each other, there's no reason to stare at one over another. I prefer each in different situations. So I don't have an answer as to which I prefer. It's best to look at everything in conjunction. 

Sure. I like using extreme examples to illustrate how metrics can interpreted and compared to one another, like my fly ball example, or a player whose 0-1 with 4 walks with a 500 OPS and a 560 wOBA versus a guy who’s 2/5 with a single and a double, a 4.3 wOBA and a 1000 OPS. 
 

Just curious. I’m not trying to argue here, 

[Jason Ross]

Just now, Geographyhater8888 said:

Sure. I like using extreme examples to illustrate how metrics can interpreted and compared to one another, like my fly ball example, or a player whose 0-1 with 4 walks with a 500 OPS and a 560 wOBA versus a guy who’s 2/5 with a single and a double, a 4.3 wOBA and a 1000 OPS. 
 

Just curious. I’m not trying to argue here, 

Didn't think you were. Just explaining my rationale! Especially in the summer when I don't have 125 teenagers spouting whatever the newest brainrot is at me, I've got nothing else to do at 8am than explain my thought process on xERA or xFIP.

It's either that or watch some trashy 26 year old movie where they send Val Kilmer and Tom Sizemore to Mars that I know my wife doesn't want to watch when she's around.

[Geographyhater8888]

1 minute ago, Jason Ross said:

Didn't think you were. Just explaining my rationale! Especially in the summer when I don't have 125 teenagers spouting whatever the newest brainrot is at me, I've got nothing else to do at 8am than explain my thought process on xERA or xFIP.

It's either that or watch some trashy 26 year old movie where they send Val Kilmer and Tom Sizemore to Mars that I know my wife doesn't want to watch when she's around.

Middle school kids are jackasses. Good luck until you get your pension, if you’re patient enough to not quit. 

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Middle school kids are jackasses. Good luck until you get your pension, if you’re patient enough to not quit. 

Just completed year-15 and headed onto 16. I'm around 50% of the way to retirement age in Kentucky. And honestly? It's not too bad. Teenagers are...finicky. But once you realize that the opinion and validation of a 13-year-old isn't what I need, it becomes a lot easier to let their jackassery roll off your back. 

"Oh? You don't want to write a paragraph? Bummer, dude. Does sound like a you problem, however." 

[Geographyhater8888]

13 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Just completed year-15 and headed onto 16. I'm around 50% of the way to retirement age in Kentucky. And honestly? It's not too bad. Teenagers are...finicky. But once you realize that the opinion and validation of a 13-year-old isn't what I need, it becomes a lot easier to let their jackassery roll off your back. 

"Oh? You don't want to write a paragraph? Bummer, dude." 

They’ll have AI write it for them anyways. My Mom was a teacher as is my cousin so I hear all kinds of stories.

Edited yesterday at 12:45 PM by Geographyhater8888

[Hunter]

14 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Just completed year-15 and headed onto 16. I'm around 50% of the way to retirement age in Kentucky. And honestly? It's not too bad. Teenagers are...finicky. But once you realize that the opinion and validation of a 13-year-old isn't what I need, it becomes a lot easier to let their jackassery roll off your back. 

"Oh? You don't want to write a paragraph? Bummer, dude. Does sound like a you problem, however." 

Hello to a fellow Kentuckian. 

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, Hunter said:

Hello to a fellow Kentuckian. 

[Funky-daddy]

17 hours ago, Bertz said:

I am super curious how he's valued.  If he was 23 instead of 25 he's a top 10 prospect in the sport.  With his age he is and should be discounted, but how far we talking?  Fringe top 100 guy?  10th in an average farm system?  Less?  More?

I feel like I have a pretty decent read on what a Mo-led deal for Detmers or Soriano looks like: Mo, a nice second piece like Alcantara or Kepley, and a 3rd piece that's boom/bust and further away from the majors (think like Mule or Lovich).  But Ayers?  I'm not even positive if he'd be the first or second guy in the deal.

I would definitely do the mo-centered deal but his value has to be rock bottom right now — same as Alcantara

[Bertz]

42 minutes ago, Funky-daddy said:

I would definitely do the mo-centered deal but his value has to be rock bottom right now — same as Alcantara

I don't think teams have that level of recency bias

[Dfan25]

I think the Cubs will end up trading for   Gausman 

With that said I think Detmers is number # 1 on their board. Could be very important againts a team like the Phillies in a short series 

Edited 18 hours ago by Dfan25

[Dfan25]

You guys think the Angels view Ballesteros as a true catching option ?

[Outshined_One]

Part of the difficulty with valuing Ayers is that he's a unicorn. He was a 19th round pick who was largely unheralded until late last year, and even coming into this season the attitude was relatively restrained. The Cubs historically have done a very good job of developing catchers (Amaya. Caratini, Contreras, Castillo, Soto), so it's not like his breakout comes as a complete shock, but catchers who are way too old for A-ball tend to be more likely take the coaching career track than make it to the majors, much less hit the holy horsefeathers out of the ball and jump to AAA in a single season.

You can make the case for Ayers as a borderline Top 100 guy and teams will definitely have interest in him in deadline deals. The problem is, he's on a road that's rarely (if ever) traveled, so his ceiling could be anywhere from "backup catcher who doesn't get a second contract" to "if he's traded, you will get irrationally angry every time you see his name come up over the next decade."

[muntjack]

Mo is going to hit, and I think that's probably the prevailing opinion around the league. 

Ayers is a massive helium guy, and I'm guessing different organizations may have wildly differing views.  If the right one is bullish on him, he could be a big piece.   

 

[Rcal10]

2 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

Part of the difficulty with valuing Ayers is that he's a unicorn. He was a 19th round pick who was largely unheralded until late last year, and even coming into this season the attitude was relatively restrained. The Cubs historically have done a very good job of developing catchers (Amaya. Caratini, Contreras, Castillo, Soto), so it's not like his breakout comes as a complete shock, but catchers who are way too old for A-ball tend to be more likely take the coaching career track than make it to the majors, much less hit the holy horsefeathers out of the ball and jump to AAA in a single season.

You can make the case for Ayers as a borderline Top 100 guy and teams will definitely have interest in him in deadline deals. The problem is, he's on a road that's rarely (if ever) traveled, so his ceiling could be anywhere from "backup catcher who doesn't get a second contract" to "if he's traded, you will get irrationally angry every time you see his name come up over the next decade."

If the Angels would do a Detmers deal with Ayers as the main piece in the deal from the Cubs I wouldn’t say a word about it later. I would make that deal before they changed their mind. Ayers is sound money. Spend it!!!!