Transmogrified Tiger

A better 3 point reform would be removing the 3rd free throw for fouled shooters: https://theathletic.com/1360529/2019/11/20/hollinger-the-three-shot-foul-is-a-bad-rule-badly-enforced-with-bad-side-effects-it-needs-to-go/ To sum up the argument: - 3 shot fouls are disproportionately valuable compared to all other shooting fouls - Because players know this, they endanger themselves and others to try and get those calls, the exact opposite behavior that a more extreme punishment tries to avoid - Officials very rarely have the right angle to see when shooters are exploiting the rule with extended legs or exaggerated jumping motions - No one wants to see players trying to draw fouls every time they shoot a challenged jumper

Segura is an interesting one. In a vacuum I think of several things I like, but in practice since he's not exactly a top of order bat and that contract is non-trivial, I wonder if he's only a good idea in certain contexts. For example, Q and Almora for Segura and say, Seranthony Dominguez, then use Bote to get a live armed SP to go with a volume rotation approach? I know Quintana only has a year left, but I don't see how how Segura at second over Bote/Hoerner, which to me seems marginal at best, makes up for the downgrade of whatever Bote gets you to Quintana plus Dominguez. I guess it depends on where you fall on the hypothetical spectrum of "let's retool and compete every year indefinitely" vs "pretty much all of our good players are hitting free agency and also old in two years, so let's take advantage" To me, it'd about transferring certainty from one area to another. On offense the Cubs probably benefit more from closing holes than they do by reaching for peak performance, and vice versa with the pitching staff.

Segura is an interesting one. In a vacuum I think of several things I like, but in practice since he's not exactly a top of order bat and that contract is non-trivial, I wonder if he's only a good idea in certain contexts. For example, Q and Almora for Segura and say, Seranthony Dominguez, then use Bote to get a live armed SP to go with a volume rotation approach?

Yeah but we know that the team's shopping for more upside defensively which Chirinos doesn't really check...The other two have been top of the league framers at their best, Chirinos peaked at about average, and also have some bat Sure. But if we believe whoever is added is more the backup and Vic is getting ~115 starts, Chirinos brings a lefty mashing bat which we know is also something we need to address. I think this is where I have the most disconnect, my goal would be to find someone I consider to be Caratini's equal from a productivity perspective. If they complement each other(e.g. a lefty masher) all the better, but I think you create the greatest outcome by not intentionally getting someone known to be worse than Caratini. That is probably marginally more expensive, but I think the incremental couple million is worth the benefit/risk minimization.

Martin feels like a good fallback option since he's still a solid defender and his bat is at least playable against LHP. I'd rather explore other options at this point, personally I'd be most interested in Castro of the FAs.

Depending on which framing metric you want to trust, Caratini was between 5 and 15 runs better than Contreras as a framer last year. Statcorner: Caratini +9, Contreras +4 Fangraphs: Caratini +2, Contreras -9 Baseball Prospectus: Caratini +5, Contreras -10 EDIT: The BP number includes throwing and blocking, on framing alone it's Caratini +3, Contreras -9 I wasn't saying they were equal, I know Contreras is bad, but I don't think that gap really comes that close to making up the offensive gap. I definitely see the argument, I'm just betting on Contreras as an upper .800s OPS guy, and someone who can be taught to cut down on the throwing errors, taught to be more focused behind the plate, etc. I don't say this as someone who actively dislikes Contreras or truly wants him gone, but I think if you're looking for opportunities to have an outsized impact on the direction of the team, his combination of trade value, potential defensive gains, and the market options to help hedge against Caratini's flaws are the best bet.

I mean that's a significant part of it. Obviously you need something significant in return for Contreras to make the whole idea worthwhile, but the fulcrum is that it's easier to replace Contreras's production with players who cost less to acquire than Contreras's return would. And the reason that's possible comes down to defense and potentially knock-on effects of better defense/defense-related aspects. But there's nothing to suggest Caratini is a good defensive catcher, right? He was a negative value defensively until 2019, and even then it's not overly impressive. I get that he's already on the roster, but any sort of platoon with Caratini getting 80+ starts isn't one centered around defense. Depending on which framing metric you want to trust, Caratini was between 5 and 15 runs better than Contreras as a framer last year. Statcorner: Caratini +9, Contreras +4 Fangraphs: Caratini +2, Contreras -9 Baseball Prospectus: Caratini +5, Contreras -10 EDIT: The BP number includes throwing and blocking, on framing alone it's Caratini +3, Contreras -9

The whole idea behind trading Contreras is built on the team being able to improve their defense and pitching around a better defensive catcher, usually a really cheap group of FAs. In the case of Chirinos he's going to cost more than $6.75 million he made last year already more than 2020 Contreras, isn't a slam dunk better framer or defender than Contreras, isn't as good a hitter, and is way older. Just seems like a sloppy way to replace Contreras That is not the whole idea, or really anywhere close to the whole idea. I mean that's a significant part of it. Obviously you need something significant in return for Contreras to make the whole idea worthwhile, but the fulcrum is that it's easier to replace Contreras's production with players who cost less to acquire than Contreras's return would. And the reason that's possible comes down to defense and potentially knock-on effects of better defense/defense-related aspects.

This could truly be one of the worst unforced errors in the history of sports business. They make it to the mountain top of super clubs after decades of being second class and then they hire someone who is the antithesis of their culture and business model. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just playing devil's advocate here... What should they have done with Poch? Last 24 league games (12 this year and 12 last) and they have 25 points. So for almost 2/3 of a season, they played like a relegation team. And they couldn't score while playing a chunk of their normal team against a 4th division side. I know they had the UCL run and that was amazing, but that can't be the only thing you're judged on as a manager. This wasn't some string of unlucky results in the league either where Spurs dominated but couldn't win. They got outplayed by teams like Sheffield and Brighton. They need an 86th minute goal just to tie Watford. In 5 of 12 games they held a lead and didn't win. They also blew two leads in the UCL. I'm not saying Poch was the whole problem or even the main problem. But he's certainly not blameless. He can't be. How long do you let it go on before you make a change? I really don't know what the right answer is here. This is strictly regarding the Poch firing, not the Mourinho hiring. I won't even try to defend that because you're spot on with that part. At the end of last year they had approximately 75 injuries and were prioritizing the Champions League run. They made it nervy but they qualified for Champions League too so even though it wasn't good it accomplished the primary objective. As far as this year goes, I haven't watched a ton of Spurs, but multiple smart people who do seem to indicate the team is just fried. I would guess that's partially on Pochettino's coaching and playing style, but the majority is on the fixture congestion and lack of depth from the injuries and lack of signings. I tend to think managers get fired way too quickly in club soccer, but I also understand that they have an expensive stadium to pay for and they really need to make Champions League (currently 11 points out).

0% chance he offered actual cash Look at that guy, he's completely smitten with the logo. Probably thinks he saved himself millions on branding consultants.

95% chance that logo was for his granddaughter's travel softball team and he showed up for a game and loved it so much offered the coach 10 grand for the rights

Manager griping that you don't buy players and has lost the locker room? Go get Mourinho that'll fix it!

The sales pitch for Margot: - He's entering his prime at 25, and his plate discipline(walk rate and O-Swing) took a step forward last year - He has pedigree, entering 2017 he was a consensus Top 25 overall prospect and had made it through AAA - Theo's red sox signed him out of the DR (I suspect this is mostly trivia, but it doesn't hurt) - He's a strong defender, career +6 UZR and +9 DRS - He's very capable against LHP, .331 wOBA career and .383 last year - As a Padre, you can dream that on a different team where he's not playing 100 games in Petco + ATT + Dodger Stadium, he'll be in a greater position to succeed - He did well enough last year that you can at least see the good version of Almora as a likely floor, but not so well that he's likely to command a ransom in trade - He makes above average contact, which balances the roster slightly There's probably some other nuanced points to make(like he's strangely not great on fastballs, which could be construed as an inability to make the leap or an easier mechanical/approach fix than picking up sliders), but that's the long and short of it.

I don’t want Almora back, but to play devil’s advocate, on opening day he had a .350 wOBA v. LHP and a +2 UZR (+9 DRS) in CF. A roster spot is 600k minimum, so while his projected 1.8 number isn’t nothing if money is tight, that <1.5 incremental is a small amount in the grand scheme where you have ~10ish roster spots where you don’t know the exact salary(either acquisition or arb). Ultimately its a decision that’s down the list of things that are important to me, like whether or not Descalso comes back. And now it’s down to .318 and 96 wRC+ vs LHP, +3 DRS, .8 UZR. He horsefeathering sucks and the facts are clear as day. Maybe the money likely ends up not making an overly material difference, but he can’t be taking major league ABs/starts to start the year and ~$2 mil seems like a lot to let a guy go try and figure it out in Iowa when he never really was good to begin with. I’d rather try another guy or two out there, even if they’re castoffs from other teams like even a Keon Broxton or Juan Lagares or whatever. Just try something else because Almora clearly ain’t it. The argument for Almora is that his 2019 is an aberration, so the degree that he sucked doesnt make a whole lot of difference. Given they can fake that role already with Happ or even Hoerner and that it’s not too pricey to find a different castoff i don’t want him back, but this is gonna be the last time i make any sort of argument about him because the margins are not big and i don’t care as much as lots of folks seem to about him.

I don’t want Almora back, but to play devil’s advocate, on opening day he had a .350 wOBA v. LHP and a +2 UZR (+9 DRS) in CF. A roster spot is 600k minimum, so while his projected 1.8 number isn’t nothing if money is tight, that <1.5 incremental is a small amount in the grand scheme where you have ~10ish roster spots where you don’t know the exact salary(either acquisition or arb). Ultimately its a decision that’s down the list of things that are important to me, like whether or not Descalso comes back.

[tweet] [/tweet]

I think they’re way more concerned about LT value than absolute value, so i don’t see much benefit to backloading the first few years of a Baez (or Bryant) extension.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/benyankee/status/1195470475390050305[/tweet]

calm down Christian, you'd think he accused you of faking a rainout with a response like that

Mooney with an article of actual substance, that's a fun change of pace. I like the Akiyama fit a lot. A lot of the negative stuff about his defense has mentioned how much it has declined rather than saying it's outright bad. So maybe it's a Lorenzo Cain situation where he's gone from incredible to merely pretty good? If I'm being an optimist, the only noteworthy criticism of his defense I can recall came from a pitcher in that league but not on his team, so I have my doubts about how accurate a source it is.

Mooney with some mildly interesting miscellany: https://theathletic.com/1379851/2019/11/15/on-the-cubs-radar-mike-napoli-shogo-akiyama-brandon-morrow/ - Napoli was under consideration to be the bench coach last year (they went with Loretta instead) - The team definitely has Shogo on their radar, Mooney specifically cited his on-base ability and that he's a 'two-way' player, which might indicate there's less worry about him sticking in CF - Rehashing the Morrow story, with the implication that Morrow feels he owes the Cubs for not being more available

Agree to disagree, demonstrating you can make the leap to producing at the MLB level is the biggest jump, so even if they have higher ceilings(especially debatable for Tucker), I'm not going to simply assume they're on track to produce more.

Of the Top 10 picks in Happ's draft, 6 of them either haven't made MLB or have provided negative bWAR in a brief amount of time. 5 for Schwarber's Top 10. That's the baseline, not whether the player was an especially good major leaguer.

The bigger feather in the cap for Schwarber and Happ is that both were considered substantial reaches on draft day, and McLeod's job is as much to get guys who don't need as much work as it is to improve the players they're able to get. It's a little hard to track down 2015 draft predictions/pre-draft rankings, but FG had Happ going 11th instead of to us at 9. Another one had him at 17th. We may be getting into two separate discussions here. I assume based on this that McLeod was in charge of the draft as well as development, and so he gets credit for making those picks instead of, to use those previews, Daz Cameron or Jon Harris. But that still doesn't change the facts on his development skills, and if he gets credit for picking the right hitters those times, he gets marked down for all the pitchers he ended up on that didn't pan out. For sure, he owns the end outcome, so he doesn't get more or less credit for making a good pick that doesn't need much development time.

The bigger feather in the cap for Schwarber and Happ is that both were considered substantial reaches on draft day, and McLeod's job is as much to get guys who don't need as much work as it is to improve the players they're able to get.