Transmogrified Tiger

Oh the other thing that confuses me about the message here is that the logic that gets trotted out is inevitably in response to questions on if the Cubs should sign a Seager or Correa to 300 million dollar deals, but then the lines that get drawn would conceivably exclude guys like Jon Gray or Suzuki too, who those same writers list as compelling and reasonable targets.

also floats Didi Gregorius as an "intriguing" option; would at least be novel to have a whole team one day with arthritic shoulders/elbows Sharma also said he thinks the team needs to add 5 (?!) starting pitchers and that Steele has a better shot at being a SP than Alzolay or Mills. I'm starting to worry that spending too much time with Mooney is turning his brain into mush. I would distill it to this: Sharma in particular is repeating the idea that the only way that they're signing a player beyond ~3 years is if someone's market tanks and becomes incredible value. The reasons for that are mostly where they are in the competitive cycle and a dose of prioritizing financial flexibility. What's less clear is if this is: 1) Sharma is hearing clearly from inside the org this is the plan 2) Sharma doesn't know for sure but without hearing conflicting information he's assuming it to be true since it's what he thinks the smart decision is 3) Sharma knows very little of the actual plans, and is inferring based on his understanding of what a smart team should do in this situation The wording in all of these is fairly careful to avoid #1(And Mooney who is more aggressive in sharing this type of info hasn't said as much either), which is annoying since that's the one that would matter most. It's especially annoying because while I think there are long term deals a team in the Cubs situation should avoid(QO pitchers, 31+ FA, etc), the blanket removal of that option is categorically wrong and not the way a smart team in the Cubs position should operate(IMO). Given the lack of conviction in the words being used I'm (optimistically) willing to stack that against Jed's 'aggressive' language and some rumblings that they're interested in a few top of market guys, but it'd be nice if we had to do less tea leaf reading.

I think your preconceived notions are doing some pretty heavy lifting there.

IF true (big if), that changes the market quite a bit I think. The Tigers will probably get one of them (Correa) but who else is bidding besides their previous teams? -Padres, Phillies and Angels seem to be capped out -Mets are kind of a mess but are one option -Red Sox seem to be looking at the second tier (rumored to be interested in Javy). -White Sox don't really have a need for a SS -Don't have a solid grasp on what the Cubs or Nationals are going to do. I'd expect the Cubs to get involved if the market is lower than expected Who else? Jays, Cardinals, Giants? Maybe the Mariners or Rangers. All possibilities but I don't see any of those teams except maybe SF offering a gigantic contract the way the Yankees would have. Wouldn't be surprised if Seager ended up back in LA and Semien back in Toronto unless I'm missing some news. This is what I said a month ago and I think it's still mostly accurate. Since then we found out that Cincinnati is definitely not in the mix, and I think the Angels aggressiveness is reason enough for them to be included if only as an outside shot. Everyone else won't be spending or has a quality SS. I also don't trust that NYY is writing off that market already, but regardless there's enough teams to see an easy path to those folks getting signed without the Cubs, but so many SS that they still have decent odds if they choose to play.

Speaking of this, Canada is basically the opposite, they still have 4 road games and they're all against central american teams. If they struggle like the US has they could slip fairly quickly. Here's the next window for the contenders: Canada: @ Honduras, v. USMNT, @ El Salvador USMNT: v. El Salvador, @ Canada, v. Honduras Mexico: @ Jamaica, v. Costa Rica, v. Panama Panama: @ Costa Rica, v. Jamaica, @ Mexico yeah the US really needs to be comfortably clear of the playoff after this window. I'd feel better if the central American teams Canada was facing weren't the teams that have a combined 1 win so far in the octo. It's one of those things where Canada(and Mexico) don't really matter unless they start dropping games like that. In this next window Canada's only really relevant head to head, Mexico playing CR and Panama at home is where we'll either get separation of the Top 3 or Mexico will find themselves in a much less comfortable place than they want to be.

The new CBA could change this, but since he got a QO this year Thor can't get one ever again. This is why Stroman couldn't get one this year.

I think that list of assumptions is a pretty useful framework. Maybe it's not 80 million but close enough since there's a lot of amounts we have to guess and some of the difference will come out in the wash. In the specifics, there's zero chance of signing Gray, Desclafani, and Kikuchi. Two of them is probably a stretch unless Kikuchi's market is pretty thin, and Stroman + Gray won't happen either. Too many other teams want pitching for the realities of negotiations and bidding incentives to work out. Or, in the off chance you do pull off that miracle, there's likely a sacrifice on the offensive end of not getting top targets because your time and money went to the pitchers. For DH, I would just as soon sign another outfielder for similar AAV instead of Cruz. That way Schwindel, Wisdom, and your favorite zero cost option of choice(Ortega, Rule 5 pick, NRI, etc) can slot in for 1B + DH at bats, and you likely get better overall output for the same expenditure. It's probably for more years, but if it's someone like Suzuki you're picking up what you hope is a foundational player given his age, and if it's someone like Canha he shouldn't require 4 years and maybe not even 3. EDIT: You beat me to the Canha point! I also don't think we can go into next year with Hoerner penciled in at SS without investing in insurance for him. Doesn't have to be a big FA, maybe Philly would rather pay the difference this year to get Bote for Gregorius or something, but you've got to hedge Hoerner's health and unproven ability to handle the position at the MLB level.

Speaking of this, Canada is basically the opposite, they still have 4 road games and they're all against central american teams. If they struggle like the US has they could slip fairly quickly. Here's the next window for the contenders: Canada: @ Honduras, v. USMNT, @ El Salvador USMNT: v. El Salvador, @ Canada, v. Honduras Mexico: @ Jamaica, v. Costa Rica, v. Panama Panama: @ Costa Rica, v. Jamaica, @ Mexico yeah the US really needs to be comfortably clear of the playoff after this window.

Assuming this result holds, records against the top 4 of the ocho: Canada: 4 games, 8 points US/Panama: 3 games, 4 points Mexico: 4 games, 2 points who wouldve guessed Mexico would have to be bumslayers to advance

As much as I would enjoy Mexico momentarily dropping to the playoff if they lose, these second half capitulations to Panama are getting old. We’d be functionally qualified if teams would stop blowing second half leads to them.

Panama has really overperformed thus far(and still have 3 of the 4 most difficult road games to go) and are only on pace for 22. Even getting 7 from the 3 home games(especially if 3 of those points come v. Panama) is probably about enough on its own. If you get 7 or 9 from the next window then you basically only need to care about beating Panama at home in the final window. One minor plus, the US now have 5 straight games in North America before the last game in Costa Rica, so crappy field conditions and similar CONCACAFery shouldn't hold them back.

everyone knows that Michail Antonio is not a soccer playing robot sent from the future to torment us, what this goal presupposes is...maybe he is?

Devil's Avocado, Bryan: Cam Sanders got consistently torched by AA hitters, and the HR tendencies plus lack of excellence against RH hitters don't make him particularly attractive as a reliever or potential SP when you have to roster him all year.

There are basically no reasonable sets of circumstances where the Cubs paying Syndergaard for one year make sense. I'm as optimistic about their rebuilding chances as anyone but with someone like Thor there's zero chance he'd extend, you couldn't offer him a QO again, and the odds of being a championship team while paying him 20 million aren't great even if you make all your spending dreams come true. Oh and you give up significant draft/IFA assets too. At the same time, this is still a little baffling for the Angels. Yes they have money to spend and yes Thor is a nice upside play where if he pans out they could have a pretty ferocious postseason rotation. But to get there you need to make the playoffs and the Angels roster from spots 6 to 26 is a tire fire. Case in point, Steamer isn't perfect, but it projects the Angels for fewer fWAR outside of the top 5 roster spots than the Cubs. Making a high dollar 1 year upside gamble(and paying draft capital to do it while you have a bottom 5 farm system) is not the way for them to maximize their chances.

This is an interesting thought: Here's some FA with the % of their 2021 starts that went 6+ IP: Gausman: 60% (!) Stroman: 52% Kikuchi: 52% Desclafani: 48% Rodon: 43% Wood: 42% Gray: 41% (weird: 26% in road starts, 57% at home) Matz: 38% Cobb: 28% Richards: 22% Wacha: 18% This is not perfect, the successful SP will stay in longer, 6 IP is arbitrary(Cobb and Richards had an additional ~15% go 5.2 IP), and different teams have different philosophy(Wacha's number is at least partially the Rays doing their thing), but it's an interesting thought. Especially for someone like Kikuchi whose performance wasn't as strong overall as the others in that tier.

I almost didn't use the word stability because I didn't want to give the impression I was considering Mills some mid-rotation workhorse in the Lackey/Hammel mold, but rather that he gives you more certainty than the player you're trading away in the upcoming year, and that could matter a lot to a team trying to compete now. In this case it's guys coming off major surgery, but for other teams it could be adding Mills to a deal for a SP prospect stalled at AAA/MLB to hedge against the loss of depth. I can kinda see what you're saying if I squint, but Mills' value (and his upside) seems just so marginal that I feel like most teams would honestly rather take a chance with a random quad A guy than give up anything of any value whatsoever for Mills. That's very reasonable, but I think there's also the argument that Mills is more than just a replacement level guy who happened to get innings. He's started 31 games since the start of 2020 for 161 IP, 4.68 ERA/4.74 FIP/4.32 xFIP, that's basically a league average starter for that run environment. People are talking about paying Garrett Richards a fair amount of money in FA when he's in the same ballpark or worse, for example. I don't think there's teams beating down the door to add Mills to their pitching depth, but in the context of a deal that also provides some other benefit(prospect, money saved, etc) I think Mills is potentially appealing as a way to minimize the downside of a contending team trading away an arm near MLB level that they've soured on(for injury or performance reasons).

Both Turnbull and Boyd could have more value to the Cubs than a team dead set on competing if you like their profile. Unfortunately the one thing the Tigers seem to have decent options for is LH OF with Baddoo and Grossman, so I'm not sure how direct a match there is in trade unless they want to exchange upside for immediacy/stability and trade for Mills. Are we thinking about the same Alec Mills? Two turns through the lineup if you're lucky, has only cleared 100 IP at the ML level once, ERA should be the 4.50-5.00 range? Pitching lots of mediocre innings is worth something. I wont debate you there. Steve Trachsel, Jason Marquis, etc... Perfectly fine careers and a great guy to have in the #4 or #5 spot. But those guys had long track records of performing at that level while eating lots of innings. Mills averaged, what, four and a half innings per start? And there's no real indication as to how his arm will hold up trying to toss a full season's worth of pitches. I can't imagine any team valuing him for stability purposes unless your only other option is to try to bring back Rich Harden. I almost didn't use the word stability because I didn't want to give the impression I was considering Mills some mid-rotation workhorse in the Lackey/Hammel mold, but rather that he gives you more certainty than the player you're trading away in the upcoming year, and that could matter a lot to a team trying to compete now. In this case it's guys coming off major surgery, but for other teams it could be adding Mills to a deal for a SP prospect stalled at AAA/MLB to hedge against the loss of depth.

Pretty good result for team chaos so far, Spain won but Portugal and Italy are both headed to the playoff, and Norway still can punt the Dutch to the playoffs tomorrow by beating them. EDIT: And if Wales beats Belgium(who have zero to play for) tomorrow, then Italy(and the Dutch if they lose) won't even be in Pot 1 for the playoff draw. So you could in theory have a 4 team single elimination bracket for one world cup spot with Portugal, Italy/Netherlands, and (I think) Austria as 3 of the 4 teams.

Both Turnbull and Boyd could have more value to the Cubs than a team dead set on competing if you like their profile. Unfortunately the one thing the Tigers seem to have decent options for is LH OF with Baddoo and Grossman, so I'm not sure how direct a match there is in trade unless they want to exchange upside for immediacy/stability and trade for Mills.

That could be a pretty good point of progression for Adams as long as his existing skills are enough to keep him getting consistent playing time. One thing I noticed a handful of times on Friday is his hesitation to use his left foot for more than simple short passes slowed down the attack. Not even necessarily line splitting balls but hitting an open window to move things out to the wings, he'd either stay safe and recycle or take an extra touch or two to put it on his right foot and lose some of the advantage. If he was able to make those passes more consistently, between his defensive prowess and his touch on those short chips to break lines he could really make the leap.

Interested to see what this does to Detroit's pursuit of a SS. Do they go for broke with multiple QO guys? Target Baez to avoid a 2nd? Stop playing in those waters at that position? They were dead last in position player WAR last year so while that might be a bigger need they could spread that around to fill more gaps.

In general, think this is probably a little overstated. Wisdom had zero split, Schwindel crushed righties, and Willson is no slouch against them either. Getting someone to pull an Ortega(.321/.374/.526, 11 HR in 271 PA) isn’t *easy*, but those types of gambles are always available if you have the playing time to give too. However, if you do want to go that route, the trade name that comes to mind here is Dominic Smith, assuming there’s a match for whatever the Mets clown show is trying to do.

I’m interested in the possibility of Lorenzen being someone worth stretching out, I’m typically of the mind that players like Lorenzen(or Gray) who have spent their careers in one org have more opportunity/likelihood of an adjustment that helps them find improvement, especially when they have that stuff/athleticism profile, so the recent results don’t terrify me. Where I think the plan of adding Lorenzen loses some logic is the intersection of his capacity for innings, acquisition cost, and the duration of payoff. As mentioned, Lorenzen hasn’t thrown more than 33 IP the last 2 years, and he’s been a reliever for 6 years(Samardzija by comparison spent 1 year as a full-time reliever in between being a SP in the minors and the majors). Expecting more than 100 good innings next year out of someone like Lorenzen feels like a mistake. And because of this, you have to be clear eyed about how that fits into your plans. The rotation already has a fair amount of uncertainty on this front, and even if you want to throw a bunch of arms at the problem there’s still only so many roster spots(Hendricks, Miley, Mills, Steele, and of course Lorenzen would not have options and if healthy Alzolay needs MLB dev). And then there’s the payoff, Lorenzen’s contract seems unlikely to break the bank, but in order to truly reap the rewards of stretching him out you’d need at least a 2 year deal, which would likely require a non-trivial financial commitment and limit other SP options in dollars or opportunity of playing time. All that said, I don’t think Lorenzen is a bad target, but we should be clear eyed about the limits of that acquisition. He’s a perfectly cromulent option for a veteran bullpen role and even as a multi-inning reliever, and there’s likely some mutually agreeable outcome where you give him 2 years or an option year where his salary escalates based on IP to incentivize stretching him out. But in an offseason where Jed keeps saying they need to add starting pitching and most of us seem to think 2 more SP are needed, I don’t think adding Lorenzen changes that, so you have to be careful about the terms.

lol did Pulisic really have “man in the mirror” on his undershirt, p h e n o m e n a l

Okay now this is pissing me off