Outfield Options

[Frenchsoup]

Please provide references or quantification thx

 

[Boxcar]

Wow @ comparing Bautista to Puig off the field.

 

Reading is hard.

[Boxcar]

Their reputations aren't close to the same. Few people in Toronto have anything bad to say about Bautista. There is every indication that Puig is disliked by his teammates, his coaching staff, and his management, in addition to having a terrible reputation with the media and other teams in the league. The simplest explanation for that is that he's a miserable prick.

 

Puig grew up very poor, then had millions of dollars and endless adoration thrown at him. I wonder what kind of effect that would have on someone?

 

It's just so easy to say he's a piece of s***, isn't it? Context be damned. I think he'll get it, he's showing good signs. I feel bad for him, tbh.

[BTS]

Puig grew up very poor, then had millions of dollars and endless adoration thrown at him. I wonder what kind of effect that would have on someone?

 

It's just so easy to say he's a piece of s***, isn't it? Context be damned. I think he'll get it, he's showing good signs. I feel bad for him, tbh.

 

I'm not saying I wouldn't want him, I'm saying he has too many issues for me to want to give up an asset like Osuna for him. The mediocre play, the injuries, and then possibly the worst reputation of any player in the league. There are a lot of hurdles to clear on the path to reaching his potential.

[Grant77]

Puig grew up very poor, then had millions of dollars and endless adoration thrown at him. I wonder what kind of effect that would have on someone?

 

It's just so easy to say he's a piece of s***, isn't it? Context be damned. I think he'll get it, he's showing good signs. I feel bad for him, tbh.

 

I feel bad for him too. Surely he would have been happier to remain poor and unknown.

[burlingtonbandit]

I think even Bautista is more well liked by his teammates than Donaldson.

[Boxcar]

I feel bad for him too. Surely he would have been happier to remain poor and unknown.

 

Wasn't really my point, but thanks for your useless input, as always.

[Brownie19]

Would Osuna fetch Conforto?

[tazsub3]

Would Osuna fetch Conforto?

 

after sanchez, osuna is the biggest untouchable on the team

[Olerud363]

I feel bad for him too. Surely he would have been happier to remain poor and unknown.

 

If Trump ends the world it is your fault.

 

People like you are exactly why, Miami Cubans voted for Trump.

 

Grant77 (and other "elitists") - I am Grant. I am wise. I love all of you. Do not fall for the lies of empire. Do not vote for the false prophet Trump. I am you saviour, I will return you to your homeland of cuba, where you can live moral happy lives, poor and unknown. I am Grant, I know what's best for you. I love you."

 

Miami Cubans - "Holy s***, f***ing christ these elitists are nut-balls, We need to vote for Trump."

[Boxcar]

after sanchez, osuna is the biggest untouchable on the team

 

Without a shred of hyperbole.

 

I doubt the Mets would deal Conforto for Osuna anyway, but we should be all over that.

[wamco]

Lol!

 

It's all-encompassing. It actually means everything.

It's not perfect, but it's the best stat available to us to measure a player's contributions in all facets of the game.

 

It's not the be-all/end-all, but, like any stat, it should be used with other stats to best gauge a player's value and output.

 

-it's an approximation, not gospel

[wamco]

I would do Osuna for Puig in a heart beat.

 

Sign a fa of. Trade osuna in a few years for a haul.

[wamco]

I'm sure he's a swell guy and everyone else in baseball is the real problem.

 

-well said

[Governator]

I feel like the trend for team's overpaying for top relievers is going to see a sharp drop off at some point soon. Once one of the big arms blow out or don't provide the predicted return on investment even by the midway point of their contracts, GMs might realize the high cost per WAR on relievers isn't worth the gamble. History might not suggest that as a few teams will always overpay for needs like a power bat in their mid 30s but it still makes me question if the value on high-end relievers and closers might soon peak between now and the next couple of years and if you can predict that it might be a good time to reap the rewards and sell sooner than later.

[Maine Jays]

Without a shred of hyperbole.

 

I doubt the Mets would deal Conforto for Osuna anyway, but we should be all over that.

 

The Mets should give us Conforto for free after raping us in the Thor/Dickey deal

[Bobthe4th]

I feel like the trend for team's overpaying for top relievers is going to see a sharp drop off at some point soon. Once one of the big arms blow out or don't provide the predicted return on investment even by the midway point of their contracts, GMs might realize the high cost per WAR on relievers isn't worth the gamble. History might not suggest that as a few teams will always overpay for needs like a power bat in their mid 30s but it still makes me question if the value on high-end relievers and closers might soon peak between now and the next couple of years and if you can predict that it might be a good time to reap the rewards and sell sooner than later.

 

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see what happens. The threat of injury or becoming replacement level hasn't slowed the free agent cost of starters though.

 

The fact is most free agent signings that are decent players are an overpay, simply because the signing team isn't giving up any assets (unless it's a draft pick, and even then that's only a hypothetical future asset, not a current, tangible asset). So normally you have multiple teams interested in signing someone at their "true value" and you have to pay more than everyone else to get them to sign for your team. That's not changing anytime soon.

[Olerud363]

I feel like the trend for team's overpaying for top relievers is going to see a sharp drop off at some point soon. Once one of the big arms blow out or don't provide the predicted return on investment even by the midway point of their contracts, GMs might realize the high cost per WAR on relievers isn't worth the gamble. History might not suggest that as a few teams will always overpay for needs like a power bat in their mid 30s but it still makes me question if the value on high-end relievers and closers might soon peak between now and the next couple of years and if you can predict that it might be a good time to reap the rewards and sell sooner than later.

 

The reliever bubble is happening in the context of recency bias and small sample size.

 

If the Jays beat up Tomlin and the lefty rookie (who is so unknown, I can't remember his name, or even care to look it up) the reliever bubble may not even be a thing. Andrew Miller is not a legend.

[glory]

I'd trade Osuna when he starts to get expensive. He shouldn't be untouchable at all. Young relievers don't always stay good for long.

[Governator]

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see what happens. The threat of injury or becoming replacement level hasn't slowed the free agent cost of starters though.

 

The fact is most free agent signings that are decent players are an overpay, simply because the signing team isn't giving up any assets (unless it's a draft pick, and even then that's only a hypothetical future asset, not a current, tangible asset). So normally you have multiple teams interested in signing someone at their "true value" and you have to pay more than everyone else to get them to sign for your team. That's not changing anytime soon.

 

 

Is $30MM AAV for a top of the line starting pitcher who nets you 5-6 WAR an overpay when you're getting $6MM / WAR on the deal? It's a 33% discount by some people.

 

You can't really compare starters to relievers here though. Since the beginning of the game team's have relied on starters to eat up innings and they got paid handsomely for it, as they should considering the best starting pitchers are arguably the most valuable in the game. This reliever strategy however, is so new GM's are jumping on it without fully thinking it through. When the Royals won the WS their team was built around the BP but since they were relied on more than their starters it made perfect sense. However, just because it can work, spending a boat load of money on 1-2 WAR players (Maybe 2.5 at their best) on long term deals is still f***ing dumb. They'll realize that strategy is best used for smaller market teams with weak rotations to gamble more moderately on, there's a reason the name BJ Ryan scares people. Of course there is an argument to be made about the Rickey Romero's, Vernon Wells of the world too but relievers are viewed as more inconsistent & fragile year-to-year than most and the bigger factor is they only get limited innings to build their value. A rough 20 inning stretch can ruin the value of a year's contract.

[CrackerJack]

I think even Bautista is more well liked by his teammates than Donaldson.

 

in the team-polled MVP voting last season, Donaldson received only 2 measly votes ... compared to Edwin's 41. so, yeah, maybe you're on to something about JD?

[G-Snarls]

[Pendleton]

I feel like the trend for team's overpaying for top relievers is going to see a sharp drop off at some point soon. Once one of the big arms blow out or don't provide the predicted return on investment even by the midway point of their contracts, GMs might realize the high cost per WAR on relievers isn't worth the gamble. History might not suggest that as a few teams will always overpay for needs like a power bat in their mid 30s but it still makes me question if the value on high-end relievers and closers might soon peak between now and the next couple of years and if you can predict that it might be a good time to reap the rewards and sell sooner than later.

 

GMs really shouldn't be that impressionable but I absolutely believe that is the case. High end relievers are the vogue acquisition at the moment thanks in large part to teams wanting to replicate the bullpen dominance we've seen in recent seasons. I completely agree that the market will fall off at some point once a couple teams get burnt by arms falling apart.

[reedjohnsonfan]

in the team-polled MVP voting last season, Donaldson received only 2 measly votes ... compared to Edwin's 41. so, yeah, maybe you're on to something about JD?

 

Didn't know that, thanks for sharing. Edwin's tenure might be a contributing factor?

[Bobthe4th]

I feel like the trend for team's overpaying for top relievers is going to see a sharp drop off at some point soon. Once one of the big arms blow out or don't provide the predicted return on investment even by the midway point of their contracts, GMs might realize the high cost per WAR on relievers isn't worth the gamble. History might not suggest that as a few teams will always overpay for needs like a power bat in their mid 30s but it still makes me question if the value on high-end relievers and closers might soon peak between now and the next couple of years and if you can predict that it might be a good time to reap the rewards and sell sooner than later.

 

Yeah I agree it's going to be interesting. If the trend does continue then I think we could eventually see an adjustment to WAR calculations for relievers to reflect that.

 

Not sure how it'd work though. Some sort of multiple applied for innings pitched when the score is close from the 7th inning onwards? I know they'd be push back from the people who believe every inning is the same, but at the moment that's not what's happening. For example a scoreless inning in the 8th of a 1 run game is seen as more important than a scoreless inning in the 1st of the same game, simply because the both teams have less chances to score after the 8th than the 1st inning. And that's ignoring the human factors of pressure and atmosphere etc late in the game.

[G-Snarls]

Didn't know that, thanks for sharing. Edwin's tenure might be a contributing factor?

 

Everybody Edwin

[burlingtonbandit]

Is $30MM AAV for a top of the line starting pitcher who nets you 5-6 WAR an overpay when you're getting $6MM / WAR on the deal? It's a 33% discount by some people.

 

You can't really compare starters to relievers here though. Since the beginning of the game team's have relied on starters to eat up innings and they got paid handsomely for it, as they should considering the best starting pitchers are arguably the most valuable in the game. This reliever strategy however, is so new GM's are jumping on it without fully thinking it through. When the Royals won the WS their team was built around the BP but since they were relied on more than their starters it made perfect sense. However, just because it can work, spending a boat load of money on 1-2 WAR players (Maybe 2.5 at their best) on long term deals is still f***ing dumb. They'll realize that strategy is best used for smaller market teams with weak rotations to gamble more moderately on, there's a reason the name BJ Ryan scares people. Of course there is an argument to be made about the Rickey Romero's, Vernon Wells of the world too but relievers are viewed as more inconsistent & fragile year-to-year than most and the bigger factor is they only get limited innings to build their value. A rough 20 inning stretch can ruin the value of a year's contract.

 

There was a reason why 7 of the top 20 pitchers in WPA were relievers. WAR doesn't show the true value of high leverage relievers thats why they are getting paid more. Shapiro even said on the radio the other day the market has finally caught up to what they are worth and before it was a loophole.

[Governator]

There was a reason why 7 of the top 20 pitchers in WPA were relievers. WAR doesn't show the true value of high leverage relievers thats why they are getting paid more. Shapiro even said on the radio the other day the market has finally caught up to what they are worth and before it was a loophole.

 

Still seems very crazy to throw $17-18MM/yr for a max 65 innings of work from 1 pitcher. Don't get me wrong it's not an illogical strategy, I get the point of it and why they value them so high based on the recent success of similarly built teams but it seems like such a high risk to gamble that kind of money on their success for 5 years+. Relievers can be inconsistent (which we know quite well first hand) and when they have stretches of poor results it can impact their season value as much as 3x that of a starter if you consider their limited amount of innings available to them. My opinion might change in a few years, we'll see.

[Bobthe4th]

Still seems very crazy to throw $17-18MM/yr for a max 65 innings of work from 1 pitcher. Don't get me wrong it's not an illogical strategy, I get the point of it and why they value them so high based on the recent success of similarly built teams but it seems like such a high risk to gamble that kind of money on their success for 5 years+. Relievers can be inconsistent (which we know quite well first hand) and when they have stretches of poor results it can impact their season value as much as 3x that of a starter if you consider their limited amount of innings available to them. My opinion might change in a few years, we'll see.

 

To be fair you've got a really good point about how trends drive the market. Miller in the postseason this year, the Royals last year. A bit like how in the NBA everyone seems to be going small ball and relying on the 3.

 

I think what happens mid to long term with Osuna will also have a effect on the overall perceived value of relievers. It's fairly likely he'll never be converted to a starter now, if he has a long, successful career as a closer (5+ more years, whether it's with the Jays or not) we may see less of young pitchers always being steered towards starting.

[John_Havok]

Still seems very crazy to throw $17-18MM/yr for a max 65 innings of work from 1 pitcher. Don't get me wrong it's not an illogical strategy, I get the point of it and why they value them so high based on the recent success of similarly built teams but it seems like such a high risk to gamble that kind of money on their success for 5 years+. Relievers can be inconsistent (which we know quite well first hand) and when they have stretches of poor results it can impact their season value as much as 3x that of a starter if you consider their limited amount of innings available to them. My opinion might change in a few years, we'll see.

 

It's only crazy if you aren't high on the won curve. The would be 0 point in the Braves spending that kind of cash on the pen, but it makes sense for the Red Sox