Transmogrified Tiger

What the hell are you even talking about? People complain about cheap owners, you think suppressing spending so cheap owners can pretend to catch up answers that? That's not going to change anything for the better. This doesn't fix anything, it only holds down spending. I'm genuinely confused that this is an arguable point. The baseline assumption for folks complaining about cheap owners(be they temporarily tanking or habitual low spenders in small markets) is that spending more would help the team have more success. If that's true and spending is correlated with success, then having a more narrow margin in everyone's spending means success is distributed more evenly. The only way that's not true is if spending is not correlated with success, or in a huge coincidence teams that spend a lot now have some unrelated quality that will keep them on top when their spending advantage is lower(or vice versa for teams that spend less).

Spending is not an inequality. You can't fix cheapness and greed. And you have absolutely zero evidence that artificially restraining spending by top teams and adding a very low arbitrary floor will actually lead to better competition or an improvement in the game. Even if your theory proved correct, I don't think it's great for baseball to have everybody win 84 games. Professional athletics is about greatness. Disincentivizing the goal of greatness is not good for any sport. This is a baffling take and at odds with the exact things that folks rightfully critical of ownership have been saying for years. The difference between the top payroll this year and the 30th is 200 million, the difference between 5th and 25th is over 110 million. Putting a huge dent in that delta would of course make a huge difference in competitive balance, to imply otherwise would be to imply that spending doesn't matter or that low payroll teams are structurally inferior in some substantial way that just does not exist. Moreover, 'every team winning 84 games' is not a true depiction, even in this bad proposal the gap of 80(or more) million is significant, you absolutely would still have stratification. But I'd also argue that every team clustering around .500 would be way better for the league than the current environment with 5-10 teams staring down multiple years(if not indefinite) of non-competitiveness in a sport whose long season/total number of games is part of its appeal/value proposition.

There's two levers here, total spending and spending inequality. Fixing spending inequality makes more teams more competitive, changes incentives that lead to teams getting rid of good players, and ultimately would lead to better competitive balance. More teams with more seasons where they play meaningful baseball is good for the sport. This remains true even if total spending is flat or even down somewhat(though there are limits). Most importantly though, any choice between the two is a false choice, you don't have to lower total spending to address spending inequality. But given where the goalposts are and the owners' incentives, it's very possible that's the choice that will be offered without a sustained work stoppage.

Why would teams who always have to be at the minimum overpay for bad players on short deals over and over instead of just spending the same amount to get better players or extend their current good/popular players? Not sure I understand that complaint. As an ownership proposal that's a first salvo in negotiations I am sure it's very bad when you add up what the net spending would be, but I am curious about what would happen to parity and team building with a minimum salary and/or a smaller deviation in team payrolls. It's possible something very bad for players in that sense could be very good for the competitive environment and therefore the health of the game, which might make for some trickiness in negotiating. To be clear, the health of the game and good outcomes for players are not mutually exclusive ideas by any stretch, but given the structural disadvantages it may end up with that being the way the choice is framed without a lengthy work stoppage.

Thanks for mentioning him. Two things that work against him are his age (27), and 8HR/57 IP. Not sure what sources such a high HR-allowed rate. If he could keep the good stuff but eliminate the HR-vulnerability, he might become a fun late-development story. Seems like the (classic side armer?) problem is lefties. RHH: 132 PA, .151/.227/.235, 2 HR, 38/8 K/BB LHH: 93 PA, .289/.348/.542, 6 HR, 25/6 K/BB

Happ starting to show some signs of life, 5 for his last 15 with 2 BB, a 2B and 2 HR

Not only that, but they got the designation for the tax breaks and for no other reason. what? they only get tax exemption if they are a non-profit historical preservation corporation, I dont think they are that. maybe the City gave them some tax breaks, but the City gives lots of orgs tax breaks on their buildings https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30347853/sources-wrigley-field-given-federal-landmark-status IIRC the city/Tunney put the team through a bunch of unnecessary nonsense because of similar landmark/historical status at the start of the renovations so this type of thing isn't without its downsides, but it seems clear they get a financial benefit from that particular landmark distinction.

It’s good to remember the 3 best position players on the team are on the IL, so there’s a significant influx on the current roster relative to what we’re seeing right now, plus any optimism you want to have about others who could be productive role players(Happ, Bote, Deichmann) or better than their current role(most of the non-Hendricks SP). There is a lot of depth to add though. Plus there's Brennen Davis. Steamer thinks he's a league average hitter in the big leagues right now. So that's another ~2.5 WAR (obviously with wide error bars) for next year that's already in the org but not on the roster. I also think the cascading effects of depth are always understated until you actually see them in action. Frank Schwindel as the starting 1B would be a huge disappointment. Frank Schwindel as the top RH platoon bat off the bench might be a good thing. Steele as the #3 starter would be a huge yikes, but as fighting for the #5? Etc. Pushing the should be bench players that currently make up our starting lineup into the bench roles doesn't just reduce their playing time, it improves their performance when they do play because they're put in advantageous positions a higher proportion of the time. Agree with the broad point here(though I'm not gonna be pleased with Schwindel on any opening day roster), the other thing that is worth pointing out is that depth is easy to add but sometimes hard to identify. What I mean here is that going from 3-5 useful position players to 6-8 is not something that really should cost tens of millions of dollars or a bunch of prospect capital, there's lots of good performances that come from marginal FAs(look at Tepera or Marisnick), non-tenders or by trading for guys being dumped. The problem is with the current level of depth you need a very high hit rate on them(and/or some existing player development successes) to be playoff caliber. With good process, good coaching, and good fortune you can do well(look at the 2021 Giants lineup and rotation), but it's also why I tend to frame it as the 2022 playoffs being possible but unlikely, and the 2023 playoffs being a more attainable goal.

Does Arrieta check any of those boxes? Yes, several! Also a contender is adding him for free in dollar and player terms, which is not a comparison to questioning why Davies didn't have a deadline trade market.

It’s good to remember the 3 best position players on the team are on the IL, so there’s a significant influx on the current roster relative to what we’re seeing right now, plus any optimism you want to have about others who could be productive role players(Happ, Bote, Deichmann) or better than their current role(most of the non-Hendricks SP). There is a lot of depth to add though.

I hadn’t noticed this til I saw Passan’s column today, but after tonight the Reds are now within 2 games of the Padres for the wild card, and they have about 20 more games against bottom feeders the rest of the way than San Diego does.

This year’s version of Davies has basically no appeal to a contender as a deadline add. Does he provide a guaranteed baseline of productivity over anyone pitching at AAA? No. Does he have a greater ceiling than the average AAA call up? Nope. Is the best version of himself someone you want starting a playoff game? No again. Is he useful in short relief if he isn’t needed to start? Also no!

…did they see what Kimbrel and Bryant were actually traded for? Why would that be surprising or suspicious.

I mean he has 2.4 offensive bWar so far this year - missing a moderate amount of time (and he should get a +1 for the Pittsburgh game) I don't think that's below average - I'd almost be more worried about the spots of sloppy defense this year. He teases you every now and then - there was that week and a half where he was walking almost once a game and then he got hurt and then he seemed to revert when he came back. It's like its in there just below the surface. So horsefeathers it I'd bring him back as long as the contract wasn't silly. I was being a bit literal/pedantic, he has a 99 wRC+ this year on the heels of 57 last year. Doesn't make him a bad player, but if he's not clearing 100 wRC+ he's not likely to go above being a 3 win guy.

I’m being a little pedantic here because I think even if the answer to your question is yes(I’m open to that being true but don’t have much certainty), I don’t know if that tells us anything new other than saying “they are not hitting well” a different way. The reasons for not hitting line drives or with the right launch angle(which again, I’m not sure itself is an objective goal to aim for) are numerous and dependent on the individual, so outside of saying that they aren’t unlucky with a little more certainty, I don’t know that we’re saying anything novel about the group that was mentioned.

Pro - Younger than other expensive options(though not younger than Seager or Correa) - Should be within the team’s ability to spend pretty much no matter what(not as pricey as the other options, no draft pick lost) - Should be more likely to stick at SS than the others - Extreme fun/personality - 80 grade physical tools should avoid too steep a cliff in performance on a long term deal Con - Below average hitter the last 2 years - plate discipline has not come around with age and limits the upside for your investment - already failed to extend him once/bridge could be burned My openness to Javy is a function of what the FA market looks like, and that’s gonna be dependent on the CBA given how many high end guys are there. If the front office isn’t open to paying Seager 200 million but Javy is gonna get half of that outlay? I can get on board with it. It’s unlikely to be my favorite/plan A though, too little upside for the expense and too many other potentially good uses for the money.

Launch angles Happ 9.4 Bote 10.2 Heyward 7.6 Wisdom 19.2 Ortega 18.5 Schwindel 18.1 I don’t think this is quite that simple. Just taking the top 50 hitters in wOBA as a proxy, 8 of them have sub-11 launch angles, and 8 have 18+. Bote’s launch angle is a career high and Heyward has never been higher than 11.3 while still having strong offensive seasons. Plus, even if we accept launch angle as decisive it’s still a symptom of something else which is unlikely to be universal across 3 or 6+ guys.

The beautiful game

My thought was that teams that lose 100 games tend to be willing to let their pitching go rather than risk them going kaboom before they're good again. That had me eying Gallen as well as the Marlins' front three. That makes sense, I definitely have looked over that Marlins rotation a couple times since they have the pattern of selling off arb pitchers. I do think this type of thing generally happens more to pitchers who have hit arb given the expense and declining trade value as FA approaches, but especially given that Gallen isn't some DeGrom/Scherzer monster, I could see him going for the right combination of upside and quantity from your trade asset buckets. More broadly, I really struggle with the idea of trades for pitchers in general because of this. They avoid the expense and age of the FA market, but knowing who could realistically be dealt is a big challenge(hence my gravitation to habitual sellers like the Florida teams), and I'm hesitant to deploy a bunch of new found farm system depth for one right off the bat.

This led me to discover that Gallen was #18 in the Fangraphs trade value list(just ahead of Brandon Woodruff), which 1) good grief Fangraphs, Dave Cameron does not work there anymore, and 2) does illustrate my question, which is why would the Diamondbacks trade him?

Let’s call this series of moves ‘the gang tries loan sharking’ Assumptions: - No huge CBA changes, in particular to the LT dynamic. DH is added - payroll can stay flat to 2021 - Extend Willson, 15M AAV - PTBNL-worthy stuff to San Diego for Hosmer and Gore - PTBNL-worthy stuff to LAA, LAA prospects to TB, Chirinos and Justin Upton to Cubs - Happ to KC for Lucius Fox - Sign Vince Velasquez or similar FA SP to a prove it deal, 1 year 8M plus team or mutual option - Sign Conforto, 4/60 - Grab a couple buy-low RP and a backup C, 7M total Contreras/FA Hosmer/Madrigal/Hoerner/Wisdom/Bote/Fox Conforto/Ortega/Deichmann/Upton/Heyward (Davis by EOY) The main downsides here are a lack of starpower and weakness at CF. Davis is the obvious solution, and in the meantime you hope that either Fox hits enough to let you flex Hoerner to CF, or you get a not-disastrous defensive performance from one of the other OF(helped by Wrigley’s shallow alleys). Alternatively, replace Ortega, Heyward, or Deichmann with a zero cost placeholder CF. Hendricks/Velasquez/Chirinos/Alzolay/AAAA (Gore + maybe Kilian by EOY) All the org arms + a couple FA off the pile This is where we’ve invested our chips, and if the gambles pan out you have an excellent rotation with depth to ensure the bullpen stays strong. This team should set up nicely to continue to improve in 2022 and in 2023, and Upton’s salary(and possibly Velasquez) drops after next year to give you a nice chunk of change to work with that doesn’t require backfilling big production.

For the rest of this season I don’t mind riding any hot streak that Schwindel has, and I’d be more than fine with him at Iowa next year, but between his age, lack of defensive value, and his Almorian plate discipline he doesn’t strike me as a guy who could be part of the next good Cub team.

What do you think the Padres' motivation is to get rid of Hosmer I'm just going by the multiple stories of the Padres trying to find a way to dump Hosmer. Right, did you read why the Padres wanted to dump Hosmer in those stories? Is that satisfied by trading him for Heyward?

The team's payroll rank for those 3 years was 9th, 14th, and 19th, for an easy to calculate average of 14th. That equates to a ~125-130 million payroll in 2021, the White Sox, Twins, and Braves are all right there if you want a mental image. This is the crux of what I'm getting at, I'm not even saying the ideology is 100% wrong but when you actually put specifics to it you don't have to write off the immediate future the way the team did in 2012. Things might be much worse than they ought to be(and also might not, see my post above), but that doesn't mean catastrophic things for the next 3 years. I almost said a low midmarket team but small market team sounded cooler and didnt think anyone would call me out on it. :D I just can't remember ever seeing a bad team become a good team in 2 years with ~80% of the team being acquired during the interim. Yes teams often bring up prospects, but how many current prospects do you see being a part of the 2023 team? What does the Cubs projected payroll look like after arb raises? $60m? I just can't see Jed spending $65-70m this offseason to get the payroll up to that $125-$130 level. Maybe I'm wrong, as that could be like 3-4 players these days. Let’s think about this in extremely broad terms. Unscientifically, to be a playoff team, the Cubs need 10 above average position players(w/2-3 stars), 4 above average SP(with 2 stars), and a decent or better bullpen. Right now I think you can say the 2022-2023 Cubs have a decent shot at having 5 or 6 of those position players in the org already(Contreras, Davis, Hoerner, Madrigal, 1-2 of Wisdom/Happ/Deichmann), 1-2 SP(Hendricks + the best of current AAAA options + Kilian), and can hope they have a good org philosophy and depth to be okay in the pen. That means they need 4-5 position players and 2-3 SP over 2 offseasons to reach that point for 2023. Also, take these definitions seriously but not literally. You can be above average and be the fat part of a platoon, or be a 2.3 WAR SP that you don’t want pitching twice in a playoff series. None of this is guaranteed, it’s meant to be illustrative of a non-trivial possibility. Now let’s layer on the payroll. A 2022 26 man roster of players currently under team control is likely to run around 75 million, the only arb eligibles that aren’t around the minimum/non-tender candidates are Willson and Happ. Even in the situation where we say ownership says “hey, until we see progress that a playoff team(or just not losing to the Brewers each game by 11 runs) is imminent, payroll needs to stay around 125 million”, you can see a path from here to there. Pay for a FA position player and SP you believe in, then do it again after the proof of concept in 2022. Have a player development and/or distressed asset win or 2(a la Valbuena or Montero). If you’re close, consider trading from prospect depth for a good piece(a la Chapman). A one year/post-prime free agent has a strong year(a la Jay or Hammel), maybe a prospect accelerates their timeline(Canario?). You can see how you can get close to that line of being a playoff caliber/contending team without having to jump payroll to 175 million. This isn’t meant to imply that the road is wide or that it’s easy or certain to get to that outcome, lots of stuff can go wrong even if you have a higher baseline of talent on the roster, as the last couple years have shown. But crucially, there’s not much opportunity cost to the approach here. Maybe you’d rather save scarce dollars for a bigger investment in fewer players, but that’s an evergreen problem and often solves itself through the inevitable ebbs and flows(e.g. Happ and Bote’s money disappears, a pop up prospect saves you money on bench players, etc).

The team's payroll rank for those 3 years was 9th, 14th, and 19th, for an easy to calculate average of 14th. That equates to a ~125-130 million payroll in 2021, the White Sox, Twins, and Braves are all right there if you want a mental image. This is the crux of what I'm getting at, I'm not even saying the ideology is 100% wrong but when you actually put specifics to it you don't have to write off the immediate future the way the team did in 2012. Things might be much worse than they ought to be(and also might not, see my post above), but that doesn't mean catastrophic things for the next 3 years.