Thrilho

After being pretty ambivalent about the Bears for most of the season, I've been reading practically everything I can get my hands on and youtubing up all these prospects the last couple weeks. Been meaning to get my thoughts out in a more convincing fashion than this post will be, but after that post by davell I thought this was a good spot to jump in with some information. Personally, my top QB option in the draft far and away is Trubisky. I think he's got good pocket presence, good touch on the ball at every level, good deep ball, great escapability, good mechanics, and decent height. Only threw 4 picks during the regular season, so decision making pretty good. I think Voch Lombardi does a pretty good job breaking down all the QBs in the draft. Below is his video on Trubisky (and a lot of what I say above I'm just parroting). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwONkFHias8 I think Trubisky could start the second half of the season and be Wentz level decent, if they went with a stop gap like Hoyer or Cutler. Other than Mitch, not in love with any of the other QBs but would be ok taking if Pace dug them. Right now, if he came out, my number guy 2 would probably be Josh Allen. I've watched 4 of his full games and he's a lot like Jay or Flacco physically. Basically, elite level arm where he can make every throw on the run, played in a pro-style offense, but line sucked and he's got a penchant for taking off early and throwing across his body downfield. If Pace thinks he could coach the Jay out of him, he could be the best QB in this class rather easily I think and a potential top level guy. Other than that, I'm probably at Kizer over Watson right now, but not floored with either. If Trubisky goes ahead of the Bears that means Allen or Garrett is on the board. So would have to really like one of those guys to take them there. Not a big fan of the rd 2 or later guys, especially Kaaya. I'll put more of my thoughts out on these guys later. But what I really wanted to post was this article in support of davell's Taylor idea. I love PFF and they're seriously into Taylor. Some good stuff at the link below. Could see this being a better option than is being given credit for. https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-bills-should-build-around-tyrod-taylor-not-show-him-the-door/ Then, not sure if you guys saw this, but Polian says his top route over all QBs on the market and in the draft is AJ McCarron. Hadn't given him much thought, but Polian is a smart dude. McCarron had 19-9 TD-Int ratio in his rookie year (which we'd all be floored with out of our rookie) and a 77-15 TD-Int ratio in college. He's got a large gaudy chest tattoo, so I need to find out more before endorsing, but could be a decent option. http://cin.247sports.com/Bolt/Bill-Polian-calls-AJ-McCarron-top-target-for-teams-that-need-QBs-50272938 If the Bears draft a QB at 3, I could see keeping Cutty, getting Romo, or a half season of Hoyer before giving way to the rookie all being options. I don't see why everyone is so concerned with getting really good next year though. I can see why Pace and Fox are, because Fox especially is on the hot seat. But the Bears have sucked hard at drafting for 10 years. You can't turn that all around with a couple good drafts. If Pace is able to finally hit on a legit QB I don't really care what the record is next year. What I don't want though is just a wasted mid-round (or even 2nd round) pick on some guy they're lukewarm on just to say they've got a developmental QB. In this draft, where the second round pick could be a very good player, it seems a lot smarter to get the QB you're sold on in the first and fill in the secondary in the second. Last thing that doesn't make any sense to me. I see a lot of people bringing up Darnold and Rosen as alternatives to this draft class. Well those guys are going to go in the top 5 (maybe 1-2), and I really don't anticipate being near there next year. So unless you plan on giving up a king's those guys aren't likely to be available to the Bears. This year, they can grab whoever they want. So I like the idea of looking very closely at these QBs rather than just saying "it's not an elite class....NEXT."

These parts are the major things I hold issue with. That it's a given that Javy can't be as good with the glove and that he'll be worse with the bat. While at the same time giving an aging player benefit of the doubt that last year was an injury driven outlier. This is probably why I'm markedly more optimitistic than some on Javy. I see no reason his defense has to drop off and think he's more likely than not to improve with the bat. I do agree that the FO's preferred every day alignment is Jay/Almora in CF, which necessitates Javy on the bench or filling in. But I'm personally not assuming that the best lineup would have Jay in it. He's got at least as much as Javy to prove in my eyes. If he was that much of a given he'd have gotten more than 1/$8.

Are we not considering Heyward as the de facto full-time CF, with Zobrist in RF and Baez at 2B? Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things, but neither Jay nor Almora is likely to deserve more ABs than Javy over the course of the season. Jay alone was better than Javy last year even when Javy was propped up by very selective usage. I could see that alignment vs lefties if Almora struggles, but the defense with Almora or Jay in center is so much better. I think Heyward will primarily play as a RFer. Zobrist at 2B, Baez getting mixed in a little less selectively than last year is what I expect, but Baez will struggle more overall at the plate as a result. I know my only posts are Javy apologist posts but the "Jay was better than Javy" and the "defense is so much better with Jay" are not close to certain. Jay did have a 100 wRC+ vs Javy's 94 and a .319 wOBA vs Javy's .316. But Javy pulled down 2.7 fWAR in 450 PAs vs Jay's 1.1 in 370. Jay was a negative defender last year. Heyward had a 27 UZR/150 in center last year. Career of 19. Zobrist was -1.5ish at both 2B and RF. So on defense, it's largely Jay vs Javy and whether you think Zobrists bad defense is is a bigger hit in the IF or OF. I think IF defense is markedly more important but I'm out drinking with people and don't have a good way to back that up. But my way of thinking (and playoff Joe's) is that you want Zobrist in the OF and the elite glove on the IF if possible. The batting line is questionable; you might think he gets better with more PAs or worse with more PAs against righties. But it really wasn't close as to who was a better player last year and if Heyward is close to as good as Jay in center (seems like a layup to me) I'd think the best defense doesn't have Jay in it.

6th now Yeah, that was great. Got to see the Bears play great on defense, holding the Packers relatively at bay despite the 3 (meaningful) turnovers by Barkley. Decent pass rush and pretty good coverage. Got to see the offense run pretty crisply with Barkley at the helm and Howard pretty well dominate the Packers. Then you got to see the Packers win at the end on a pretty fluky play and the Bears hold onto a top 5 draft pick in a year where they lost all those close game. Perfect outcome. Get that draft pick. I've missed a bunch of games, but both lines are looking great (aside from o tackle) and a lot of Pace draft picks are looking like players. Receiving corps is looking pretty good for the future too, with Meredith emerging and pretty much getting yards no matter who the QB is. I'm feeling some confidence in Pace as a talent evaluator.

Why, because Barkley/Hoyer are looking good or because the other prospects are better? I'd probably take Watson or Trubisky. Have to get your future QB at some point and there probably won't be another opportunity to take any QB you want. *Edited to quote you and also note the possibility that the reason would have something to do with the dude in your avatar I'm no draft pro but I see a lot of people not enamored with any of the QBs as a top 5-7 pick. Pace says he's a BPA guy and I believe it based on his first 2 drafts. I don't think anyone necessarily believes Barkley is our long term QB but he hasn't necessarily eliminated himself as an Alex Smith type QB that's adequate on a good team but could be upgraded. So if the Bears scouts are in love with a guy in top 5 they'd take him but they aren't going to reach for a 1st round QB if they like another guy better IMO because they feel good enough that Hoyer or Barkley wouldn't be a disaster at QB next year. Yeah I'm no scout either, but Watson and Trubisky have intriguing profiles. Watson has put up great numbers for two years while leading a top 5 team. Good performances against good teams, including Bama, consistent winner. Good escapability, and high 60s completion pct. The big knocks on him seem to be decision making and inconsistent accuracy on the deep ball. But again, he won a ton so got around the decision making. And I personally don't need a incredible deep ball if the rest is good. I've seen him comped to Mariotta and if he's in that mood I'd be good. Then with Trubisky you've got a guy with a 28-4 TD to Int ratio and a 69% completion. Pretty decent deep ball and escapability. Another guy who I've seen Mariotta comps for. If they don't get QB at the top of this draft I don't know where it comes from. Count on a guy you really like being there in the middle of the first next year? Second round guy this year? I don't know how to evaluate but I'm really hoping to Bears like one of these guys and are in position to get them. I prefer Watson right now, but I'd be good with either.

Why, because Barkley/Hoyer are looking good or because the other prospects are better? I'd probably take Watson or Trubisky. Have to get your future QB at some point and there probably won't be another opportunity to take any QB you want. *Edited to quote you and also note the possibility that the reason would have something to do with the dude in your avatar

I'll stick with the way I think about it. Unsigned deals on the CBA and NPB, along with Otani's unclear motivations leave anything up for grabs. Not counting on him the way I was but to say "Cubs are out" for sure based on what MLB is current telling Passan seems pessimistic. I said Cubs are out "until 2019 at the earliest, unless something changes." It's just a statement of a fact. Not pessimistic. Under the new CBA the Cubs are limited to a 300k bonus for him while other teams can offer nearly $10 million. Any team can give him a 1 year opt out to free agency to get him to come over. Hopefully something changes. Under the current rules however, he won't be a Cub in 2018. What I'm saying is only being able to offer $300K doesn't make them 100% out. If loopholes in the CBA allow for an extension to be tacked on then $300K vs $6M on the one year portion makes relatively little difference.

If he comes over there's going to be more to it than just the $300K or $6M. Some kind of craziness with an extension or him doing a one year thing. Won't be a long term deal of $6M. And if they are able to work out some kind of extension then $300K vs $6M doesn't seem like it would be any kind of insurmountable thing for a guy who's made some money in Japan. Personally I'm counting out nothing. I have nothing to back this up but I doubt he has to wait til 2019 to come over. Guessing it's just MLB negotiating with NPB of union through the media. Passan had a new article today that said there will not be an Otani exception. Under the current rules all they can do is give him the max IFA money and then free agency after a year built into the contract. The Cubs can only offer 300k next year in that scenario. Another team could give him close to 10 million and then an opt in to FA. Maybe that changes, but for now the Cubs are out on him until at a minimum the 2019 season. I'll stick with the way I think about it. Unsigned deals on the CBA and NPB, along with Otani's unclear motivations leave anything up for grabs. Not counting on him the way I was but to say "Cubs are out" for sure based on what MLB is current telling Passan seems pessimistic.

Or looking at it from Otani's perspective, his options look something like: 1. Play in NPB until post 2019 years for a team that has no concern for his long term well being 2. Come over in 2018 on a 1 year deal for 300K-6M with ability renegotiate before 2019 3. Come over in 2018 with some kind of extension, where the team has control of 2018, 2019 + however long. This team can then average in the dollars over those first 2 seasons. So he can probably get a long deal with those two years being paid at 25-30 mil a piece If I'm Otani that first option looks by far least desirable. So seems like he'd be motivated to figure out some way into one of the second two. Could be an extra $60 mil in that third one and maybe $30 mil in that second one. Plus, he's a pitcher. That payday in 2020 is not guaranteed.

I didn't verify, but I saw a tweet yesterday that said their pool is 4.75 million and that they can't sign anyone over 300k. Thanks. So there is zero possibility Otani is a Cub in 2018 without a CBA rule change. If for whatever reason he elects to come over and play for the CBA allowed maximum signing bonus he won't be going to the Cubs for 300k. Either he waits until 2019, they make a rule change, or the Cubs can't bid. If he comes over there's going to be more to it than just the $300K or $6M. Some kind of craziness with an extension or him doing a one year thing. Won't be a long term deal of $6M. And if they are able to work out some kind of extension then $300K vs $6M doesn't seem like it would be any kind of insurmountable thing for a guy who's made some money in Japan. Personally I'm counting out nothing. I have nothing to back this up but I doubt he has to wait til 2019 to come over. Guessing it's just MLB negotiating with NPB of union through the media.

The Washington rumor wasn't just quantity, though. I mean, Giolito still has frontline stuff, and Robles could be special. Still wonder if he might have a bit more pop, and if he did, that's a possible top overall prospect type of talent. I think the difference, in the end, was probably that the White Sox wanted a positional asset that was closer to the majors than a pitcher (Robles probably needs a couple more years in the minors), and that the White Sox had better pitching depth relatively speaking. As for the Nationals, if they wanted Trea Turner along with Giolito AND Robles ... good for them for backing away. That would've been insane to do. I hadn't seen what the Nats deal what exactly but I figured something like Robles and Giolito plus with no Turner. And it's not a total lack of quality, but the quality is split between two players who each have warts. Robles had an almost identical wOBA to Eloy at the same level while being 6 months younger. And that's with 22 HBP elevating Robles' OBP to .400 while having a roughly equal BB rate to Eloy. I don't know a lot about the two defensively or swing wise, but I'd take Eloy over Robles fairly handily as a layperson. Then Giolito is a post-TJ pitcher. Contrast that package with Moncada and I'd much rather have the certainty of one very likely top notch positional talent than any deal where a significant portion of the value is a pitcher or where it's dependent on a corner outfielder as far away as Robles (or Eloy) is.

Right.... I would like to say I'm not "anti-javy," I think he has clear value and a use on this team (as you just illustrated above with him subbing for Heyward/Schwarbs vs LHP and Zobrist going to the OF). It's just that I think it stops at anything more than a platoon player vs LHP and late inning defensive/base running sub. I am extremely skeptical of him being able to do anything vs RHP moving forward and being more of a full-time guy. Sure if we have the luxury of a big division lead again this year in the 2nd half go wild with him seeing RHP every day for 2-3 weeks, I just think it's not a good plan to plan on him playing a lot more this year vs RHP and give us a lot of value/contribute to wins offensively. Yeah, the matter of how much he'll improve vs right handed pitching and how quickly is totally a matter of opinion. We've all seen the same games and data, so it'll shake itself out in time. But for this year I'm sort of off my kick of needing/wanting him to play 5 days a week right out of the gate. With Schwarber back and it being clear that the plan is not to play Heyward in center the ABs may just not be there. Especially if Zobrist wants to get close to his 147 games from 2016. Despite my proclamations during the playoffs about Javy being ready for a full time job, I more meant for Soler to get out of his way and that I personally expect that Javy does earn more time. If he's not playing because Zobrist and Schwarbs are hitting and the team doesn't want JHey in center then so be it. He'll have plenty of time to develop against righties when he gets in.

Those playoff numbers against righties looked better before the WS though. He fell apart there, but Kluber was carving up everyone. Either way, I think lost in the concern over his performance against righties is how good he was against lefties. He was .311/.375/.475 with a 124 wRC+ and .359 wOBA. And he's on a roster that has Schwarber, who had a .481 OPS and 31 wRC+ against lefties in 2015 and Heyward, whose has wRC+ of 82 for his career against lefties and had a 62 last year. If Schwarber isn't at a least league average hitter against lefties Javy is a better option (irrespective of development considerations), and I'd say Javy is a proven better option than Heyward all the time against lefties. Then Jon Jay, who doesn't have much of a platoon problem, but he's not 124 wRC+ good against them. So even if Javy doesn't carve out more time against righties, I'd say Javy has a lot of value to the team. But thennnnn if maybe he does improve against righties...

Jansen has been my favorite target (just above Fowler), but 5 years is a long time for a pitcher and especially if it's a reliever who has one pitch. He's the elitest of the elite right now, so you'd think that no matter what he'd be able to play a backend role somewhere in 5 years. But if they project him to be significantly less than elite for years 4 and 5 I could see not wanting the money committed there. Not sure what's in the plans, but it seems like Otani, Harper, Trout, the whole 2019 class, extensions, and a bunch of top end pitchers you could eventually want to trade for are in versions of the future budget. Maybe not, but I could see a lot of scenarios where you don't want that much sunk into a closer. One thing might just be that they don't want to have to treat the closer with kid's gloves. The Cubs and Dodgers both ran their closers out for multiple innings a lot. Would either have done that if they had 4 remaining years on their contracts? Or would you be able to do that a couple years from now? Cleveland did with Miller, but his deal is only 2 more years. If this is the plan it would be great to get Colome too. Or some other young guy to develop for 2018+, along with CJ. If they ended up with a couple cost controlled guys in the pen it would at least be less risky if they're going to be try and continue the approach of only pitching 4 relievers in a playoff series. Either way, for this year, you'd think Davis would be relied on a lot if healthy. I was curious how many innings he normally goes for in the playoffs. He pitched 14.1 innings in 12 games in the 2014 playoffs and 10.2 in 8 games in 2015. That's roughly 1.2 and 1.3 innings per game, respectively. For comparison, Jansen pitched 11.2 innings in 7 games (~1.7 per game), Miller pithed 19 innings in 10 games (~1.9), and Chapman had 15.6 in 13 game (~1.2) . So in both playoffs he's been in so far, he's been used for roughly the same innings per game as Chapman was, although likely with different useage. (I didn't check multi-innings). So I'd wonder if he'd be up for the multi-inning thing in his age 31 walk year or not. Would be cool if they've already talked to him about it.

Like you said in the other thread, maybe the new market inefficiency is not giving years to non-Jon Lester pitchers. Will take more prospects to make it happen but it could be a sustainable way to work if you eventually get some pitching out of your system.

TL;DR good for the Sox getting an elite guy rather than making something like the Washington for quantity

Yeah I didn't really think he meant literally four top 10 types, but it's seemed from what we hear in the media that their demands have been pretty exorbitant. He's saying here they need multiple can't miss guys. To me that would be like giving up Moncada and Benintendi. What they ended up with was a one true top of the line can't miss guy and some other good looking pieces. I don't know everything about everyone, but Kopech is an A ball fireballer who came in at 94 on BA's mid-season list. 33rd pick, so good pedigree. But even if he's #45 like Law had him, or mid-20s by someone that's still an A ball pitcher. They got made sure to target one really good guy and then some other pieces. Like what the Cubs did with the Russell deal, only they had a more valuable piece so they got the consensus most "can't miss" guy where the Cubs guy was a bit down the list. But nobody is giving you multiple can't miss studs for 3 years of a pitcher. So great for the Sox on getting this deal and hopefully they do more where they find at least one stud in each deal.

I believe he meant that out of 4 "can't miss"' type guys, you might get one actual star. Yeah that's what I figured, but deals with 4 "can't miss" prospects don't exist. if you're using a reasonable probability cutoff for "can't miss" you're talking about top 10, maybe top 5 guys. Or even extend it out to top 25 and you're rarely ever getting 3 of those in a deal. So is he saying only 1 in 4 "can't miss" guys turn into a star so we have to get a bunch more in the deal? If that's the case, then you're not showing much faith in your prospect evaluators. Seems like in this case they got a real "can't miss" guy. I'd say odds of Moncada being a star are well over 25%.

Yeah I don't think trading Javy for a Quintana or Archer would be a wrong move; it's just not how I'd prefer to build the team. Part is my fanboy side who enjoys watching his brand of baseball. But mostly, like you said, we've seen this FO hit amazingly well when they get creative on pitching. Then, the Lester deal is looking pretty good right now. So I'd rather just keep the powder dry, and keep a guy who played a big role in winning the World Series and who allows flexibility and coverage in everything you do on the position player side. I also dig his upside, but I could see scenarios where he never gets any better with the bat but Still provides than what Archer or Quintana give you. Over the 4-5 years Q and Archer each have, there's a pretty high probablility of erosion in their performance, whether through injury or just Gray style sudden suckage. All that's obvious, but then there's the value attached to the versatility that isn't calculated into WAR at all. To me, that versatility is worth something like a half a win per season. So I could see a trade trade with Javy for one of those guys being the right baseball move, but I'd just rather be risk averse in trading my top MLB position players and try to address pitching with money (Otani) and other creative options. Edit: the half a win for versatility thing isn't purely a "per inning played" thing. His presence allows the FO a lot of extra flexibility in building the team, not having junk players take ABs, guards against injury, facilitates being able to play match ups at like 4 other positions, etc

Lastly, to bring it home to the topic of the thread, great get by the sox. This is where Jerry was wrong (or full of horsefeathers): you don't need 4 great prospects to get 1 good player. Just evaluate and get at least one guy you're pretty damn sure on. They snagged the top guy in the minors, which is exactly what they should have done if it was available. Screw quantity. Good work Sox.

I like Quintana a lot though. Probably would trade for him ahead of Archer (without pouring over the numbers and with the understanding that Archer has an extra year of control). I think Quintana is in the neighborhood of a top 10 pitcher. And I did see TTs value breakdown of Quintana vs Schwarbs/Javy so I know neither one is projected to be worth Quintana by himself. But injuries and my preference for having Javy/Schwarber's upside in a position player trumps my need for filling out that rotation spot with another cost controlled stud. Just let Eloy become good enough to be a centerpiece of that kind of deal.

I would say that you're probably wrong, given he was always the one guy of the "core" that would take longer to reach his ceiling and I'm going to guess that his age 23 season with his most PA yet in MLB isn't going to be indicative of the final product. The guy is a difference making talent. You can make an argument that we don't get to the WS without him. I'm of the opinion that you want as many of those kind of talents available as possible. He's improved every year; there's nothing to say he can't take another step forward and be even more valuable in 2017. It's nice that we still have at least one divisive issue left, in Javy. Imagine if they did trade him for a pitcher, alleviating the wretched gridlock of 3ish+ win position players trying to garner ABs around here. It'd be a ghost town. As usual, put me down for me "screw pitchers, keep Javy. He's the Swiss army knife that stirs this drink." Luckily for me, I'm sure Theo doesn't want Joe Maddon leaving a flaming bag of doghorsefeathers on front step, so my guess is it'll be another offseason of Theo not trading Javy for a pitcher.

Also, if it's too far fetched that they'd have a fully agreed contract extension before signing the $6M deal they could just come up with a framework. It could be tough to solicit bids from tons of teams on a shadowy bargained loop hole contract extension. But if he had an idea that there was one particular team that was exceedingly attractive due to funds, marketing, team quality, manager chillness, etc that might make it easier to work out a rough number.

This sort of thing doesn't really happen, but the game theory behind it makes it a fun subject. What if the team signed him to a deal through 2019 for that $6 mil with the agreement to extend him for however long and at whatever money where the AAV including those first 3 years is agreeable to both parties. Say you tack on another 7 years at $300M or something. Then if the team doesn't hold their side of the bargain he just "retires" to Japan until the contract is up in 2019. In this case: - The team risks the $25M but knows Otani is motivated to come over and unable to negotiate with another team until post-2019 - Otani has the leverage to go back home if he wants until his regularly scheduled FA period if the team doesn't give him the extension It seems like Otani is still in an inferior bargaining position here, but it's not much. If they have the terms agreed to before signing the first contract the team would really be playing with fire trying to pull a contract switcheroo. Anyone know if it would be possible for Otani to bail on an MLB contract and try to reinstate once it's up?

Man, for the sake of the writers' credibility I hope that wasn't a driving factor behind the landslide win. I think at that point you'd have to say the players are now somehow more SABR savvy than the writers, at least with respect to this award. Or at least less lazy. Btw here are the last couple lines from that FG article. Seems pretty lazy to me, where you could probably slip a wins argument in and it would fit just fine. The statistical analysis throughout was pretty light and FIP-based, and then he drops this gem on us to finish it off. Well...Scherzer pitched a lot of innings and he's definitely an ace. That's Cy Young numbers, dude! If you pitch more innings at a higher level, yes, that makes an even more compelling case than just pitching at a higher level. And if you're making an FIP based argument, then you think Scherzer pitched at a higher level. Sure, like I said in my first post, I can see the argument that the extra innings coupled with the close FIP numbers (3.20 for Hendricks v 3.24 for Scherzer) as a reasonable argument. But what that guy laid out was, in my opinion, junk. - He completely glosses over the fact that in innings 1-5 Hendricks lays waste to Scherzer in ERA while also beating him the precious FIP stat - Doesn't mention the much higher GB% in both sets of stats that support the Hendricks' FIP-ERA gap - Uses Hendricks' FIP AND FIP-ERA in the 40 IP sample as virtually his only arguments that Hendricks is bad in late innings. But 40 IP sample...c'mon even if you like FIP you have to provide some qualifiers and hopefully use some other data in a sample that small. Especially when late in the game Hendricks is probably not trying to strike anyone out. - Claims Scherzer "takes a small statistical hit but still pitches at a Cy Young level late in the game" without providing any statistical support (nope not even a FIP comparison) - Again, no reference to wOBA, where Hendricks comes out ahead - Then wraps it up with some stuff about the Cubs defense and that quote above that only references Scherzer's innings So I'd be relatively ok with someone saying "38 more innings at equivalent FIP was enough." Again, I think FIP itself is a stat without enough nuance that should be used for projection more than performance awards but that's me. What I don't like is the thought that wins played a part or when I see what I perceive to be lazy arguments. Maybe all 30 writers thought it through thoroughly, but if that article is any indication I'm not holding my breath assuming that their thought process was any good.