dew1679666265

I usually nominate guys who either I really don't want or guys who I think others will severely overpay for early. If a few people bite on players like that, it lessens their money for the guys I really want. From the ones I've done, patience seems to be the key. People's money is usually burning a hole in their wallet early and they tend to spend freely. Wait out a few bidding wars and you can usually get some really good deals.

I'm kind of that way with Terry Mulholland. I keep thinking his career was better than it was because my only real memory of him is the '98 season.

His xFIP is also still looking good at 3.70. I agree with davell that the lack of top-end pitching will likely trump his poor traditional numbers, but I'd still pursue him in the offseason (to a certain point).

stop being a jerk, keith That might not be him being a jerk. It depends on what his view of "long term" is. If he hears long term and thinks 10 years from now or something, I probably agree with him. I'm fine with Barney as a starter through his arbitration years, but probably not longer than that.

I'm starting up a fantasy football league and have openings for anybody who wants to join. It's ESPN, private, pretty standard rules, and a keeper league with 3 keepers, and free. It's a pretty intelligent league with both me and CCP in it. Anybody who wants to join can PM me and I'll PM you the link.

That's pretty awesome. Thanks. Ah, I see now. The BB and K rates also jumped out at me as big improvements, which I think is a good long-term sign.

Is it that relevant, though? If he's not been hitting the ball hard for the past 38 games, is it a surprise that he's not had very many balls fall into play? I'm not really trying to make a statement here (I'm pretty torn on how I feel about Starlin's season overall), just wondering why LD% isn't relevant when part of sneaky's point was that his line would look a lot better with 100 points added onto his BABIP.

Out of curiosity, and because I have no earthly idea how to calculate it, what would his line be if his BABIP were normalized to something like .310 or so? One thought about that too, his LD% is also way down in those 38 games so how relevant is it that the BABIP is so low since the LD% is also way down?

I'd actually be ok with giving him the qualifier each offseason until the point in time that he's willing to accept a 3/27ish deal or somebody gives him a multi-year deal and we get a comp pick. Obviously you keep trying to trade him, but unless this injury goes away and there are no lingering issues, I'll bet we don't ever get an offer worth trading him for. That could actually be a really good value for us too, since he'll likely be worth well more than the qualifying offer each year.

Assuming he doesn't pitch again this season (probably likely), you're looking at half a season for him to pitch really well and check out completely clean medically. Even then, you're going to have a number of teams concerned over the exact things you brought up. I'd be surprised if he netted a Jacob Turner at next year's deadline - not because he's not worth that and more, but because of concerns that he'd need TJS. As with basically every player, I'm completely in favor of shopping him around. However, if you don't get a decent offer, I think it's perfectly acceptable to keep him around, make a qualifying offer, and take him back on a one-year deal if nobody signs him. I do think it's more likely that he takes a team friendly deal - maybe something like the 3/27 deal TT brought up - with the Cubs at this point, kicking in after the 2013 season, obviously. And I'd really like that deal.

Well, if you buy into the idea that there are only two types of pitchers - those who have had TJS and those who are going to have it - then you would feel pretty good that Vizcaino has it behind him already. And if you believe we should tank until 2015 like some do, then it's fine that Garza may eventually need TJS since he'll have 2.5 years to have the surgery and recover from it before we try to compete again. In seriousness, though, I'm not despairing over Garza's injury yet. I'm concerned, but I at least have confidence that this front office won't be reckless with him. And with the success rate of TJS, I'm not all that concerned about Vizcaino.

We do still have the long term prognosis of this rotation, though: Garza Vizcaino Shark Wood rookie so don't despair too much.

I really doubt that. You could make an argument that Shark/Wood would be better than the duo of Guzman/Tapani, but mainly just because Shark will probably be a decent amount better than Guzman. Wood isn't likely to be better than, or even as good as, Tapani. The bottom of the older rotation (Hibbard/Trachsel/Morgan) is unquestionably better than Germano/Volstad/Raley ever could be.

True. It's still better than the current rotation, though.

He was part of the rotation I immediately thought of (Trachsel/Tapani/Clark/Foster/Gonzalez), but going by ERA+ he wasn't as good as the guys I listed. He had a 93 (I think) ERA+ - same as Mulholland, who I thought might make it.

Career ERA+: Shark - 94 Wood - 91 Volstad - 86 Germano - 83 Raley - 3.74 ERA/1.428 WHIP Jose Guzman - 102 Kevin Tapani - 101 Steve Trachsel - 99 Greg Hibbard - 98 Mike Morgan - 97

Why would it matter that Demp was listening in? I guess if Colletti was really dogging Demp or something he would have liked to have known, but I doubt it really affected anything (other than Demp realizing how little LA wanted him).

I tend to default to Fangraphs' WAR numbers because the Fangraphs WAR numbers are more predictive, while B-R's simply tell you what the player did that season. UZR is part of the difference, but the way the two sites calculate the WAR numbers are different as well. Since we're trying to take what Upton's done in the past and project it going forward, I think using Fangraphs' WAR is a more accurate portrayal. That said, I should have noted that I was using Fangraphs' WAR, but I didn't even think about it.

This is exciting, but I wish both Vitters and BJax were in the lineup today.

Wouldn't surprise me if the players were dependent upon how well Baker plays the rest of the year. I'd say we need to root for him to play really well.

That's not adding, that's swapping out. I'd rather keep Garza and maybe try to swing something for Anderson. If the Marlins are even willing to move Morrison at all, though, we need to be in on that. And nothing but 1-2 year stopgaps don't really have the effect I'm looking for. 1-2 year stopgaps without realistic long term potential (like Liriano has, for instance) are either just trade filler when we're awful again next year or they're pointless additions with respectability as the only goal. The former can be done by still adding mid-long term ML assets and the latter isn't an optimal plan.

1. Upton's had one down half season, this isn't some multi-year trend. His IsoD in 2010 and 2011 were .085 and .088, his career IsoD is .083. His IsoD is down this year, but that's not a trend and may very easily not influence his seasons going forward. And just the past two seasons, even with UZR devaluing his defense, he was worth 4+ WAR. And he's been worth between 4-5 WAR for 4 of the past 6 seasons. This isn't some fringy player who's been trending downward for 2-3 seasons. This is a borderline elite player who's had a down half season. It's a red flag that should be looked into, but my interest level in Upton hasn't dropped at all because of it. 2. Could very easily happen, but the upswing in offense this season corresponds with dropping his bat weight so it's very realistic that he can continue this for at least one more season. It very well may not be a fluke 3. The lineup after Upton is pretty debateable and I would have no problem with Barney batting 7th. I just put him there because he's a bit more proven than whoever we'd have at third. In my scenario, the top of the lineup would carry us and has the potential to be very good. We'd hope for a breakout from Vitters/Stewart to make the offense good. 4. He's also been a very highly regarded pitcher with terrific stuff who has pitched quite well for an extended stretch this season. That's far from a reason to have really high hopes for him, but if there were a mechanical change or something that caused him to pitch better then it's perfectly reasonable to think he could continue it into next season. 5/6. I put these two together because they're very related. My goal in putting this team together was to avoid signing too many players in FA because I figured somebody would freak out if I had us signing 3-4 FAs (even with all but one being bargain buys) and didn't play enough young guys. I even pointed out previously that I'd be perfectly fine with grabbing an Edwin Jackson or even Anibal Sanchez to replace Raley and push Wood down to 5th starter. That would probably be my preference since Raley has little to no upside, but I didn't want my scenario being disregarded because we were spending way too much or something. I've said previously that our intent this offseason doesn't need to be - and shouldn't be - specifically to contend. It should be to add assets that can help us contend as we move forward. In my scenario we're getting lots of PT for young guys with upside, we're adding some veteran talent to the ML roster that will keep us from adding with desperation in a couple years, and we're giving ourselves a shot at respectability and maybe even contention without committing much of the future. And I really don't see how $12 mil a year to a 29 year old who has posted a 4+ WAR 2 of the past 3 seasons (and 4 of the past 6) is "burdensome." I'm not shooting for just respectability. I'm looking to add 1-2 (or more even) mid-long term pieces that can help us down the road so that we're not in a position where we have to add multiple key FAs in one offseason. It makes it easier to jump from respectable to good/great quickly in the future and it eliminates the potential for desperation if the exact right FAs/trade targets aren't available the offseason we decide we feel like spending again. Respectability/contention, in my scenario, is a by-product of adding youngish, veteran talent to a pretty barren ML roster to increase our odds of getting good going forward.

I was using what you said you expected out of Hutchison. And I said Upton likely could get better, not would. If Hutchison's upside is that of a 3rd starter, mid-rotation guy then I have trouble seeing his stats improving that much. They likely would some, but not nearly enough to get comparable with Garza. And I think you've got the idea that it's way too easy to get a TOR starter. If it were as easy as you make it sound, a bunch more teams would have legitimate TOR starters.

Upton is great defensively and has a career .749 OPS that likely rises upon a move to the NL Central. So basically the season he's having this year (4.60 ERA, 1.35 WHIP) that's leading to a sub-2 WAR (1.8 if he started 33 games). Garza's on pace for a 3.5 WAR and has shown the ability to be as high as 5 WAR. I really don't see how they're comparable at all. I really wouldn't feel better because we wouldn't have a TOR pitcher. Maybe Shark turns into one, maybe a couple years from now one appears on the trade market, maybe Syndergaard eventually turns into one, but none of those options help us next year and I simply don't believe we should be intentionally tanking more seasons. And that's not even considering the risk involved in hoping we get a TOR pitcher somewhere down the line.

Yeah, that was too strong. I got a bit carried away. Out of curiosity, what is our current pace? We'd have to go 19-40 to finish the year with 100 losses, but I'm not sure what we're actually on pace for. 68-94. Thanks.