Rob

Looks like I'm going to head out and catch the Peoria Chiefs vs. Beloit Snappers game tonight. Anybody I should keep a particular eye on for either team?

Much better this way.

For the vast majority of pitchers, I'll look at fWAR when projecting future performance (and evaluating past performance). But there's a handful of pitchers for whom it likely overstates their value. Javier Vazquez was one. Ricky Nolasco is one. Edwin Jackson appears to be another. I'm not sure what it is about those guys, but they almost always seemed incapable of outperforming their fielding independent pitching numbers.

This is pretty awesome.

A lot. 2014 HR per 550 PA: SS Russell - 27.5 (35.7 as a Cub) RF Soler - 32.9 1B Rizzo - 28.3 LF Bryant - 42.1 2B Baez - 31.7 C Schwarber - 34.4 3B Castro - 13.4 CF Alcantara - 14 Obviously some of those minor league numbers will come down significantly at the big league level, but if you ignore context it looks so much cooler.

you are most certainly wrong Then it is a startlingly different era of baseball that we are stepping into. look around, we've been in it for several years now. the decline of ped's and the rising average age of prime free agents has absolutely changed the way front offices should approach free agent acquisitions. you're absolutely right that the sheer level of injuries and rapidly declining performance is uncanny and unpredictable, but only insomuch as how *quickly* those things have happened So won't the game just adjust accordingly based on past practices as opposed to ideal ones? It seems unlikely that you'll be able to snag guys like Castro and especially Rizzo on such team-friendly deals real soon; we'll probably just see prime free agents becoming available at younger ages as their agents and the union talk them out of waiting. And the pitching thing especially just feels more like the fluky timing of a bunch of injuries in close proximity to each other as opposed to an actual trend. You may see the early extensions become less team-friendly, but I think these extensions are here to stay. You seem to be operating under the assumption that the market will react rationally. But a lot of the appeal of these deals for the players has little to do with logic. If you had an opportunity to take a deal that would guarantee the future of you and your family before you even played a game in the majors, that's a huge selling point. A lot of guys are going to look right past the fact they should maybe get paid 15-20% more and take that safety net. And I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I didn't know he was catholic.

I'm trying to think of the last big FA signing that didn't end up providing pretty poor value... Technically it was just an extension, but Jeter's big contract with the Yankees went alright. Beltran kinda [expletive] the bed at the end of his Mets deal but they got what they paid for. The next best outcome may actually be Alfonso Soriano, believe it or not. Beltre Good call. Cabrera and Pujols had pretty good production for their mega-extensions. But those were just arb-eligible deals.

I'm trying to think of the last big FA signing that didn't end up providing pretty poor value... Technically it was just an extension, but Jeter's big contract with the Yankees went alright. Beltran kinda [expletive] the bed at the end of his Mets deal but they got what they paid for. The next best outcome may actually be Alfonso Soriano, believe it or not. What are you limiting big FA to? The sample size for this experiment was all the ~$100M+ deals I could remember off the top of my head.

I'm trying to think of the last big FA signing that didn't end up providing pretty poor value... Technically it was just an extension, but Jeter's big contract with the Yankees went alright. Beltran kinda [expletive] the bed at the end of his Mets deal but they got what they paid for. The next best outcome may actually be Alfonso Soriano, believe it or not.

Valbuena's skill set is precisely the type that doesn't result in inflated paychecks. So I'm not too worried about his escalating salary. I'm not against a Castillo signing. But his Cuban league numbers aren't all that impressive and the scouting reports are contradictory. All I'm saying is that I want to know more about what type of player he is before I get upset that the Cubs are or aren't willing to offer a certain amount. I am moderately interested in seeing how Renteria would try to cycle Castillo, Alcantara, Soler, Bryant, Baez, and Valbuena around in a lineup. But unfortunately there's not an easy platoon option that I see.

I've never really seen us as likely bidders for Castillo. Signing him would push Valbuena to the bench when Bryant comes up. And Castillo is very unlikely to be worth $60M+ more than Valbuena. The only good reason I see to sign Castillo is to make Alcantara available as the centerpiece to a trade this offseason. To that end, I could support it. But since I have very little clue what kind of player Castillo really is, I have no idea what contract he'd have to get in order for me to feel comfortable with that plan more than the alternatives.

I bet you all watch The Big Bang Theory.

Jon Heyman is reporting that the MLB is discussing moving the Montreal Expos to Washington at the end of the 2004 season. Unless they don't.

for the phillies Man this [expletive] is like the cult of Orton but for Castro. [expletive]. Not even remotely. Your opinion of Castro's value is way off. You have to be kidding me. People generally either way over value him like you, or way undervalue him, (ie he sucks because he doesn't hit 25 home runs a year). Few people get it right, he's a good young player with value that is nearly immediately replaceable. Why do you continue to act like Addison Russell has anything to do with Starlin Castro's trade value? We can replace Castro, sure. But Castro's trade value is for the teams that don't have an Addison Russell in the minors. Most of those teams would be willing to give up something a lot more valuable than a 30+ year old pitcher on a market-value contract. You need to pick a better target for your weird boner. Hell, I'd sooner trade Castro straight up for a guy like Syndergaard than I would for Hamels. And there are even better options out there than him (giving up Castro+ for Stanton is an easy target).

I'm not seeing much to suggest Cooper is anything more than a marginal middle relief prospect (not that Jackson was worth much more than that). Best case scenario probably has him filling the Blake Parker role in a few years.

I wont get too broken up over it if we don't get Castillo. I've already got Alcantara and Soler penciled in at CF and RF, respectively. Signing Castillo would basically force Valbuena to the bench when Bryant is ready, so the marginal gain there isn't huge (and possibly nonexistent). I think he'll go to a team that needs him more. If we do sign him, I'll take that as a definite sign that the Cubs are looking to trade some of their young guys this offseason. Edit: I suppose it's possible that signing Castillo would push Alcantara to a super utility role. I wouldn't mind seeing him settle into that role eventually, but I'd be real surprised if the Cubs relegate him to that role so quickly when he's been effective to this point.

Pretty excited about this. He's got some decent writers who are going to help him too. Not Hulet though. Hulet sucked. Looks like he's going to be handling some prospect stuff still, but it will all be fantasy-based.

Sure. That's basically replacement level. I can buy him as a replacement level 1b/3b guy who spends most of his time at Iowa but sometimes appears on the MLB roster. Yeah, pretty much. If we're lucky he has a 1.5 fWAR season off the bench when he gets some positive BABIP variance, only to see Cubs fans cry in agony when Theo and Hoyer flip him for something more useful.

Mike Olt has a career .162 BABIP. He's not a guy that should have a high BABIP, but the most recent figure I can find for him suggest his BABIP should be in the .260-.270 range. If we assume his BABIP should be .260 and all the missing hits are singles, his line should look something like .192/.271/.379 That still sucks, mind you. But it's basically what Moustakas is doing and I'm sure plenty of you would get excited if we had Moustakas in AAA and he was showing signs of life. He's still an extreme longshot to turn into a productive major leaguer, but his first taste of the bigs wasn't the kiss of death for his potential that some took it as.

Yeah, well the other two triplets will double up on you like you've always dreamed, and one a has a great hookup for weed.

Imagine your whorehouse has triplets who all usually charge $1. And you brought that wrinkled dollar bill with you. Trading Castro for Hamels is like picking the triplet who is on sale for $0.80 tonight, but refuses to make change. Trading Castro+ for Stanton is your exotic hooker who is available one night only. You're out in your car digging under the seat trying to come up with enough extra change for that one.

This is an emphatic no. Thank you, TT. I couldn't even figure out how to get started breaking down that convoluted nonsense. (Though what was really jumping out at me was the suggestion that the lowest WAR total from Bryant, Baez, Russell, Alcantara, and Castillo would match or beat Castro. -- That was seriously pants-on-head crazy.)

Here's a heat map of all the pitches to lefties, not just changeups. http://i.imgur.com/vTml8Hz.png

Let's make three big assumptions. 1.) Hamels stays healthy and is a 4 fWAR player for the next four years. 2.) Lester and Scherzer are exactly the same as Hamels for the next four years. 3.) Castro stays healthy and remains a 3 fWAR player for the next five years. We would be paying $6M per win for Hamels. $2.9M per win for Castro. This ignores the fact that Hamels is post-prime, already has arm issues, and has a manager who has tried to actively ruin his arm. It ignores the fact that Lester and Scherzer are just a half tick better than Hamels and don't have quite the same injury concerns. It also ignores that Castro is pre-prime and has some room for growth. So of the big 3 assumptions, all are optimistic towards Sulley's view of the situation. At the standard quote of $6M per win on the free agent market, that would mean Hamels is projected to be worth exactly what he's paid. Castro would be worth about $46M more than he's being paid. Let's take that $46M and toss it on the back end of Hamels contract. It would look like 6/$142M, which should be enough to bring in one of Lester or Scherzer. That means they could miss the last two seasons of that contract entirely and we'd be no worse off. Anything better than replacement level would be gravy. Trading Castro for Hamels is dumb.