Offseason Roster Thread 2016-17

[fatcowxlive]

Gibbon's on the radio with Blair and he said he really wants more balance on the team. He clarified by wanting a couple of good (and he emphasized good lol) left handed hitters and more team speed

[burlingtonbandit]

Gibbon's on the radio with Blair and he said he really wants more balance on the team. He clarified by wanting a couple of good (and he emphasized good lol) left handed hitters and more team speed

 

lol I was listening and it was more like "we could use some more balance to the lineup and speed". He knows as well as anyone the team just needs talent to win.

[Mikeleelop]

Yeah, Dexter Fowler would be a perfect signing. I really have no idea what he signs for this offseason.

 

cubs have an option on Fowler next year I believe

[Mikeleelop]

What's it going to take to get Puig? I realize he's a douche but we need to replace one in RF, and Puig is young and cheap. Maybe some upside there.

 

I don't think the Jays have the prospect capital to get him from the Dodgers

[jays4life19]

Yeah I can't see Fowler getting 4/72. More like 3 for 45 or 50 etc. with an option tacked on. He's going to be 31 next season.

 

Fowler would be a great addition to this squad though. Switch-hitter, can play CF or RF, and would be an awesome leadoff hitter who could get on-base and has gap power.

 

Hopefully Tulo can do some recruiting this offseason.

 

Prado is 32 and got 3 years and 40 million via an extension and not free agency. Multiple teams would have interest in Fowler on a 3 year deal, but you would have to think someone will give him a 4th to get him. He's coming off two very good years, and just put up a 5 win season.

[jays4life19]

cubs have an option on Fowler next year I believe

 

It's a mutual option and he's for sure opting out.

[fatcowxlive]

lol I was listening and it was more like "we could use some more balance to the lineup and speed". He knows as well as anyone the team just needs talent to win.

 

lol but did you hear the part when he was talking about lefties? I think he said 2 or 3 times "We need lefties..... GOOD lefties" aka Saunders and Smoak don't cut it

[RealAccountant]

It's a mutual option and he's for sure opting out.

 

I thought mutual option meant either side can take the option or is it both sides have to take the option

[jays4life19]

I thought mutual option meant either side can take the option or is it both sides have to take the option

 

Both sides need to take it which is why you never see mutual options picked up.

[RealAccountant]

Fowler would be an amazing fit. Even at 20/year. Great obp

[glory]

Fowler would be great but he will be expensive.

 

Out of the free agent list, Gomez might be the best buy low option.

[HERPDERP]

Fowler would be great but he will be expensive.

 

Out of the free agent list, Gomez might be the best buy low option.

 

pls no

[Brownie19]

Fowler would be great but he will be expensive.

 

Out of the free agent list, Gomez might be the best buy low option.

 

Gomez + Upton this this team would make me puke in my mouth far to regularly.

[Brownie19]

Serious question here.

 

Is there any research to suggest that certain types of hitters preform better v. high quality pitching? Ie, is there any conclusive evidence to suggest one of these types are more productive v. the best pitchers in baseball:

 

- low BB% / low K% hitter (Joe Panik, Altuve, D.Murphy)

- patient power hitters (Jose, Votto, Goldy, etc.)

- speedy, high BABIP hitters (S.Marte, Segura)

- guys who do a bit of everything (like Fowler and Yelich - walks, has speed, has power, high BABIP, etc.)

- high K%, high power (Trumbo)

- platoons (or having switch hitters)

 

Obviously I've missed some categories and it's hard to stereotype everyone, but bare with me.

 

I suspect based on the eye test, most would conclude the patient power hitters and high K%, high power hitters would don't produce well vs. top notch pitching. The general opinion is these guys feast on s***** pitching during the regular season and struggle in the playoffs when they only face "top" pitching. Most would look at KC, SF and even Cleveland and think the low K%, speedy, versatile guys have a better chance vs the best pitching...which has lead to their recent success.

 

Is there any truth or stats to back this observation up? Do (or should) teams focus on acquiring hitters who are more likely to produce in the playoffs when facing "top" pitchers? Discuss.

[RealAccountant]

Why do people want Votto he is owed 200 Mil and is starting on his 30s. Would be disastrous

[Bobthe4th]

After trying to get him once, surely they go back in for Jay Bruce to fill the need i.e. left handed bat and an outfielder.

 

Outfield of Upton/Carrera, Pillar, Bruce, with Pompey as back up for all positions. Not great, but leaves lots of money to spend on the infield, whether that's resign EE or get someone else.

[Brownie19]

After trying to get him once, surely they go back in for Jay Bruce to fill the need i.e. left handed bat and an outfielder.

 

Outfield of Upton/Carrera, Pillar, Bruce, with Pompey as back up for all positions. Not great, but leaves lots of money to spend on the infield, whether that's resign EE or get someone else.

 

Jay Bruce is f***ing terrible sir. 0.2 WAR combined over the past 3 years and is as bad defensively as Saunders & Jose.

[THANOS]

Serious question here.

 

Is there any research to suggest that certain types of hitters preform better v. high quality pitching? Ie, is there any conclusive evidence to suggest one of these types are more productive v. the best pitchers in baseball:

 

- low BB% / low K% hitter (Joe Panik, Altuve, D.Murphy)

- patient power hitters (Jose, Votto, Goldy, etc.)

- speedy, high BABIP hitters (S.Marte, Segura)

- guys who do a bit of everything (like Fowler and Yelich - walks, has speed, has power, high BABIP, etc.)

- high K%, high power (Trumbo)

- platoons (or having switch hitters)

 

Obviously I've missed some categories and it's hard to stereotype everyone, but bare with me.

 

I suspect based on the eye test, most would conclude the patient power hitters and high K%, high power hitters would don't produce well vs. top notch pitching. The general opinion is these guys feast on s***** pitching during the regular season and struggle in the playoffs when they only face "top" pitching. Most would look at KC, SF and even Cleveland and think the low K%, speedy, versatile guys have a better chance vs the best pitching...which has lead to their recent success.

 

Is there any truth or stats to back this observation up? Do (or should) teams focus on acquiring hitters who are more likely to produce in the playoffs when facing "top" pitchers? Discuss.

 

If you look at the past world series champions, most teams aren't typically home run hitting teams, and they certainly don't strike out a lot

 

 

2015 - Kansas , 30th in strikeouts , 24th in home runs

2014 - San Fran , 17th in strikeouts , 17th in home runs

2013 - Boston , Boston 8th in strikeouts , 6th in home runs

2012 - San Fran , 26th in strikeouts , 30th in home runs

2011 - St.Louis , 29th in strikeouts , 13th in home runs

2010 - San Fran , 19th in strikeouts , 11th in home runs

2009 - Yankees , 27th in strikeouts , 1st in home runs

2008 - Phillies , 12th in strikeouts , 2nd in homeruns

2007 - Boston , 21st in strikeouts , 18th in homeruns

2006 - St.Louis , 25th in strikeouts , 12th in homeruns

 

Now if you compare that to the Blue Jays

 

2016 - Blue Jays , 8th in strikeouts , 4th in home runs

 

You'll notice a pattern among winning teams. They don't usually strike out a lot and don't hit a lot of home runs. Now don't get me wrong, there's an exception to every rule but they're exceptions, not the rule. You can take a chance at slugging to a world series, but its not something that happens often.

[Governator]

Serious question here.

 

Is there any research to suggest that certain types of hitters preform better v. high quality pitching? Ie, is there any conclusive evidence to suggest one of these types are more productive v. the best pitchers in baseball:

 

- low BB% / low K% hitter (Joe Panik, Altuve, D.Murphy)

- patient power hitters (Jose, Votto, Goldy, etc.)

- speedy, high BABIP hitters (S.Marte, Segura)

- guys who do a bit of everything (like Fowler and Yelich - walks, has speed, has power, high BABIP, etc.)

- high K%, high power (Trumbo)

- platoons (or having switch hitters)

 

Obviously I've missed some categories and it's hard to stereotype everyone, but bare with me.

 

I suspect based on the eye test, most would conclude the patient power hitters and high K%, high power hitters would don't produce well vs. top notch pitching. The general opinion is these guys feast on s***** pitching during the regular season and struggle in the playoffs when they only face "top" pitching. Most would look at KC, SF and even Cleveland and think the low K%, speedy, versatile guys have a better chance vs the best pitching...which has lead to their recent success.

 

Is there any truth or stats to back this observation up? Do (or should) teams focus on acquiring hitters who are more likely to produce in the playoffs when facing "top" pitchers? Discuss.

 

I don't have stats to back that up but the result is really what happens when you live and die by the long ball. A cold bat, an injury or two and things can collapse quickly.

 

We mashed Hamels & Darvish with ease... our lack of offense against Cleveland was no different than it has been all season against the plethora of scrub minor league pitchers we faced all year. So I don't think I'd categorize it based on the pitcher's ability but more the fact that we failed to adjust our approach at the plate.

[TRM]

I'm skipping the first 11 pages of this thread, so apologies if this has been asked.

Would there be money to sign EE and Reddick/Fowler?

If that's doable, I'd like that. Platoon Zeke/Upton, and figure out DH as we go.

[burlingtonbandit]

Serious question here.

 

Is there any research to suggest that certain types of hitters preform better v. high quality pitching? Ie, is there any conclusive evidence to suggest one of these types are more productive v. the best pitchers in baseball:

 

- low BB% / low K% hitter (Joe Panik, Altuve, D.Murphy)

- patient power hitters (Jose, Votto, Goldy, etc.)

- speedy, high BABIP hitters (S.Marte, Segura)

- guys who do a bit of everything (like Fowler and Yelich - walks, has speed, has power, high BABIP, etc.)

- high K%, high power (Trumbo)

- platoons (or having switch hitters)

 

Obviously I've missed some categories and it's hard to stereotype everyone, but bare with me.

 

I suspect based on the eye test, most would conclude the patient power hitters and high K%, high power hitters would don't produce well vs. top notch pitching. The general opinion is these guys feast on s***** pitching during the regular season and struggle in the playoffs when they only face "top" pitching. Most would look at KC, SF and even Cleveland and think the low K%, speedy, versatile guys have a better chance vs the best pitching...which has lead to their recent success.

 

Is there any truth or stats to back this observation up? Do (or should) teams focus on acquiring hitters who are more likely to produce in the playoffs when facing "top" pitchers? Discuss.

 

Honestly I think high power guys are what you would want in the playoffs as Home Runs are what you need to score. Good luck piecing 3 or 4 hits in an inning vs quality pitching.

 

Cleveland won in large part because of Home Runs (offensively speaking). Their batting average was like .170 but slugged .386.

[Brownie19]

If you look at the past world series champions, most teams aren't typically home run hitting teams, and they certainly don't strike out a lot

 

 

2015 - Kansas , 30th in strikeouts , 24th in home runs

2014 - San Fran , 17th in strikeouts , 17th in home runs

2013 - Boston , Boston 8th in strikeouts , 6th in home runs

2012 - San Fran , 26th in strikeouts , 30th in home runs

2011 - St.Louis , 29th in strikeouts , 13th in home runs

2010 - San Fran , 19th in strikeouts , 11th in home runs

2009 - Yankees , 27th in strikeouts , 1st in home runs

2008 - Phillies , 12th in strikeouts , 2nd in homeruns

2007 - Boston , 21st in strikeouts , 18th in homeruns

2006 - St.Louis , 25th in strikeouts , 12th in homeruns

 

Now if you compare that to the Blue Jays

 

2016 - Blue Jays , 8th in strikeouts , 4th in home runs

 

You'll notice a pattern among winning teams. They don't usually strike out a lot and don't hit a lot of home runs. Now don't get me wrong, there's an exception to every rule but they're exceptions, not the rule. You can take a chance at slugging to a world series, but its not something that happens often.

 

It's kind of ironic because our best power bats (EE, JD, Tulo and Jose ) don't strike out as much as your typical power hitter - which should have put us in the driver seat. Unfortunately the likes of Saunders, Martin, Upton, Pillar, Smoak, etc. all strike out way too much (based on what they are).

[Olerud363]

Serious question here.

 

Is there any research to suggest that certain types of hitters preform better v. high quality pitching? Ie, is there any conclusive evidence to suggest one of these types are more productive v. the best pitchers in baseball:

 

- low BB% / low K% hitter (Joe Panik, Altuve, D.Murphy)

- patient power hitters (Jose, Votto, Goldy, etc.)

- speedy, high BABIP hitters (S.Marte, Segura)

- guys who do a bit of everything (like Fowler and Yelich - walks, has speed, has power, high BABIP, etc.)

- high K%, high power (Trumbo)

- platoons (or having switch hitters)

 

Obviously I've missed some categories and it's hard to stereotype everyone, but bare with me.

 

I suspect based on the eye test, most would conclude the patient power hitters and high K%, high power hitters would don't produce well vs. top notch pitching. The general opinion is these guys feast on s***** pitching during the regular season and struggle in the playoffs when they only face "top" pitching. Most would look at KC, SF and even Cleveland and think the low K%, speedy, versatile guys have a better chance vs the best pitching...which has lead to their recent success.

 

Is there any truth or stats to back this observation up? Do (or should) teams focus on acquiring hitters who are more likely to produce in the playoffs when facing "top" pitchers? Discuss.

 

Hi Brownie

 

I doubt there is any correlation. This year Jays went 1-1 in Kuber starts... 0-3 in Tomlin, bloody Bauer, and shaking rookie starts.

 

The problem was not elite pitchers. They s*** the bed against the mediocre pitchers. I don't know why. Sometimes there is no reason. It's just a crapshoot.

 

Boston Red Sox had the most balanced team known to man, every type of hitter possilbe

 

Big old left side experienced walk machine legend hitter

Young line drive MVP right handed speedy hitter

Scrappy line drive on base percentage hitter

Young top rated lefty line drive rookie hitter

Flaky righty power hitter

Experienced veteran line drive, old but not to old still sort of speedy right handed hitter

Young right handed line drive hitter

Young left handed patient, speedy, but prone to strikeouts hitter

Switch hitting line drive oddly good season hitter

 

They had every type of hitter known to man and got swept by Cleveland

[BTS]

I feel like there might be something to the idea that teams who rely more on walks and mashing mistakes for homers might have less success in cold weather against great pitching staffs who issue few walks and don't make many mistakes. Recent anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that contact teams have fared well in the postseason.

[Brownie19]

I don't have stats to back that up but the result is really what happens when you live and die by the long ball. A cold bat, an injury or two and things can collapse quickly.

 

We mashed Hamels & Darvish with ease... our lack of offense against Cleveland was no different than it has been all season against the plethora of scrub minor league pitchers we faced all year. So I don't think I'd categorize it based on the pitcher's ability but more the fact that we failed to adjust our approach at the plate.

 

I think the next step in my discussion is the fact I don't want our guys adjusting their approach (vastly) from what makes them successful. I don't want EE to try and be a punch and judy hitter simply because he struck out a few times. I said this before - if Steph Curry missing 6 straight three point attempts...I don't want him moving down in the post to try and score. It was frustrating as f*** to watch, but I don't want them to vastly change their approach at the plate. Do what you do best.

 

Instead - should you target player who's approach is typically more successful vs. "top" pitching.

 

 

Perhaps this is all a moot point, seeing as we crushed Darvish and Hamels and sucked vs. Tomlin and Merritt. But for the past 2 years it just seems like it's game over once KC and Cleveland got their top 3-4 bullpen guys in the game. I'm sure the answer is you want balance....some from each category. Interesting discussion though.

[Brownie19]

I feel like there might be something to the idea that teams who rely more on walks and mashing mistakes for homers might have less success in cold weather against great pitching staffs who issue few walks and don't make many mistakes. Recent anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that contact teams have fared well in the postseason.

 

Could this be because the contact hitters are less prone to slumps? walk/mashing offenses ride more/bigger waves of slump/success and in a relatively short series, you're more likely to hit one of the waves where the offense goes dry?

[intentional wok]

I feel like there might be something to the idea that teams who rely more on walks and mashing mistakes for homers might have less success in cold weather against great pitching staffs who issue few walks and don't make many mistakes. Recent anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that contact teams have fared well in the postseason.

 

This is what I usually say to people who think the Royals legitimately were bad and completely lucky last year (although there was plenty of that). There's value in almost never allowing an AB to end at the plate.

[Governator]

I think the next step in my discussion is the fact I don't want our guys adjusting their approach (vastly) from what makes them successful. I don't want EE to try and be a punch and judy hitter simply because he struck out a few times. I said this before - if Steph Curry missing 6 straight three point attempts...I don't want him moving down in the post to try and score. It was frustrating as f*** to watch, but I don't want them to vastly change their approach at the plate. Do what you do best.

 

Instead - should you target player who's approach is typically more successful vs. "top" pitching.

 

 

Perhaps this is all a moot point, seeing as we crushed Darvish and Hamels and sucked vs. Tomlin and Merritt. But for the past 2 years it just seems like it's game over once KC and Cleveland got their top 3-4 bullpen guys in the game. I'm sure the answer is you want balance....some from each category. Interesting discussion though.

 

 

I'm saying they failed to adjust for the last 6 weeks of the season when pitcher's upped their breaking ball usage and pitched them down and away. I'm not referring to 5 games. Really no different than team's figuring out Estrada and waiting on the offspeed that he started overthrowing during the year (kind of like the 3 straight change ups to coco crisp yesterday, Crisp waited back on that and teed it up like batting practice).

[glory]

Gomez + Upton this this team would make me puke in my mouth far to regularly.

 

He was awful last season no question but good prior to that. I'm not his biggest fan but as a buy low, I don't see many options.

[RealAccountant]

Can we assume that this front office does not consider strikeouts an issue when it comes to building a lineup considering the Smoak contract and the Upton acquisition