Jump to content
Jays Centre
  • Create Account

General 2018 Blue Jays Discussion Thread

Bobthe4th

By Bobthe4th
in Toronto Blue Jays Talk

 Share

Recommended Posts

SaskJaysFan_2 Draft Eligible

SaskJaysFan_2

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
Ah, I see. You think Martin is dead weight for some reason. Well, he isn't, the prospects you'd be getting back are org guys, and you'd need to replace him on the roster. Pretty surprising that people seem to not want Jansen learning from a borderline HOF catcher and would rather pay him 16 million dollars to play for a different team.

 

No I don't think he's dead weight. No one knows what we'd get back, because we're not wizards, but if you ate a lot of contract you would enhance the chances considerably. It's spent money regardless. I rather spend only a portion of that money and get something in return. But you're a guy who likes the idea of trading Biggio for nothing, so you may not see the sense in bringing back prospects.

  • Replies 4.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Boxcar All-Star

Boxcar

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
No I don't think he's dead weight. No one knows what we'd get back, because we're not wizards, but if you ate a lot of contract you would enhance the chances considerably. It's spent money regardless. I rather spend only a portion of that money and get something in return. But you're a guy who likes the idea of trading Biggio for nothing, so you may not see the sense in bringing back prospects.

 

Your comprehension skills are pretty remarkable.

Jimcanuck Buffalo Bisons

Jimcanuck

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
No I don't think he's dead weight. No one knows what we'd get back, because we're not wizards, but if you ate a lot of contract you would enhance the chances considerably. It's spent money regardless. I rather spend only a portion of that money and get something in return. But you're a guy who likes the idea of trading Biggio for nothing, so you may not see the sense in bringing back prospects.

 

Martin was very unlucky this year. .234 BABIP, well below his .283 career mark. He gets his career BABIP, he's a 2 WAR player.

 

He'd be a good pick for a nice bounce back year in 2019. Plus he can play multiple positions.

 

Trading him for a couple of low level prospects and retaining $16M is a bad move.

SaskJaysFan_2 Draft Eligible

SaskJaysFan_2

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
Martin was very unlucky this year. .234 BABIP, well below his .283 career mark. He gets his career BABIP, he's a 2 WAR player.

 

He'd be a good pick for a nice bounce back year in 2019. Plus he can play multiple positions.

 

Trading him for a couple of low level prospects and retaining $16M is a bad move.

 

I think keeping him on a bad team, blocking younger players, and not examining the trade for prospects avenue is shortsighted and the move a bad GM would make.

Jimcanuck Buffalo Bisons

Jimcanuck

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted (edited)
I think keeping him on a bad team, blocking younger players, and not examining the trade for prospects avenue is shortsighted and the move a bad GM would make.

 

I am sure Shatkins is evaluating that route. Problem is, at this point in time the prospects would be very marginal. While trading JD last offseason after his monster 2017 2nd half would have been the right move, the reverse is true for Martin. Rather than trade him now with salary retained for a couple of marginal prospects, better bet is to keep him and bet on a 2019 resurgence and make him available at the deadline for less retained salary and a higher return. His BABIP is not likely going to be .234 in 2019.

Edited by Jimcanuck
Boxcar All-Star

Boxcar

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
I think keeping him on a bad team, blocking younger players, and not examining the trade for prospects avenue is shortsighted and the move a bad GM would make.

 

Who is Martin blocking?

SaskJaysFan_2 Draft Eligible

SaskJaysFan_2

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
I am sure Shatkins is evaluating that route. Problem is, at this point in time the prospects would be very marginal.

 

While trading JD last offseason after his monster 2017 2nd half would have been the right move, the reverse is true for Martin. Rather than trade him now with salary retained for a couple of marginal prospects, better bet is to keep him and bet on a 2019 resurgence and make him available at the deadline for less retained salary and a higher return. His BABIP is not likely going to be .234 in 2019.

 

In my opinion, if you offer $16M you will get one or two decent prospects. That would be the third point in offering money to offload .

 

I am not sure how your JD point fits in. But I think you're saying hope and pray that Martin climbs up past the Mendoza line and then we hope we can find a trade partner? I don't think this FO wants to pin trade value on hopes and prayers. Trump and the GOP do not lead the Jays FO.

Boxcar All-Star

Boxcar

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
Looks at AAA and AA depth charts and take your pick #sockpuppets

 

So...no one, then

 

I mean, Martin is going to be backing up Jansen, that's pretty much guaranteed. So then you must be saying you'd rather have Reese McGuire come up to be the back up rather than play full time in AAA. Seems kinda weird. Maybe you have a weird thing for Luke Maile?

SaskJaysFan_2 Draft Eligible

SaskJaysFan_2

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
So...no one, then

 

I mean, Martin is going to be backing up Jansen, that's pretty much guaranteed. So then you must be saying you'd rather have Reese McGuire come up to be the back up rather than play full time in AAA. Seems kinda weird. Maybe you have a weird thing for Luke Maile?

 

I get it. You would rather hold on to a expensive veteran on the decline in what is definitely a rebuilding year instead of trading him for prospects, saving him the embarrassment of part time play, allowing the kids to play and letting him go to a contender. This isn't a shocker, coming from the guy who's willing to trade Biggio for nothing.

 

Maybe you should follow another team or sport.

Boxcar All-Star

Boxcar

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
I get it. You would rather hold on to a expensive veteran on the decline in what is definitely a rebuilding year instead of trading him for prospects, saving him the embarrassment of part time play, allowing the kids to play and letting him go to a contender. This isn't a shocker, coming from the guy who's willing to trade Biggio for nothing.

 

Maybe you should follow another team or sport.

 

My Biggio quip was a satire of you, idiot. Obviously I wish Martin made less money but we need backups and Martin is perfectly willing to play that super utility role, where he backs up C and spells guys at 3B and maybe 2B. I'd rather have that than be short 16 million so I can grab one or two org guys from another team.

Carlos Danger Dunedin Blue Jays

Carlos Danger

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
Is this real life?

 

People still look at batting average as a thing that matters?

 

Where is anyone talking about batting avg?

 

This seems to be your go to catch phrase. On the site and podcasts.

 

I have seen no one on this site, nor on this thread measuring a hitter by soley batting avg or pitchers by wins for that matter.

 

Having said that, as it refers to batting avg, it should not be entirely discounted just because there are other more advanced metrics. Everything needs to be taken in totality..

intrigid College Ball

intrigid

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
Having said that, as it refers to batting avg, it should not be entirely discounted

Can you give a single example where batting average isn't a piss poor choice compared to another stat?

Carlos Danger Dunedin Blue Jays

Carlos Danger

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
Can you give a single example where batting average isn't a piss poor choice compared to another stat?

 

1. I nor anyone else here has stated you should judge a hitter by soley batting avg.

 

2. If you have a .368 avg hitter going for the batting title, he is probably a hell of a lot better hitter then a .176 hitter measuring all metrics unless the dude has insane OBP.

 

3. OPS is a very weighted stat that made guys like Colby Rasmus look good one year in Toronto when he was not.

Spanky99 GOAT

Spanky99

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

3. OPS is a very weighted stat that made guys like Colby Rasmus look good one year in Toronto when he was not.

 

Wat??? He was a 4 Win player, lol.

Carlos Danger Dunedin Blue Jays

Carlos Danger

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
Wat??? He was a 4 Win player, lol.

 

We are talking offense.

 

He never had oWar higher then 3.6 with the Jays and that was his best year.

 

He had one year with a 1.2 oWAR and another with 1.7. while he was with the Jays.

 

One year he had 735 OPS but a .287 OBP and .225 BA. He hit some doubles and HRs which drove his OPS numbers up, but generally he sucked. He also had a very high K rate but not even as bad as some other years. A lot of bad outs.

Spanky99 GOAT

Spanky99

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
We are talking offense.

 

He never had oWar higher then 3.6 with the Jays and that was his best year.

 

He had one year with a 1.2 oWAR and another with 1.7. while he was with the Jays.

 

One year he had 735 OPS but a .287 OBP and .225 BA. He hit some doubles and HRs which drove his OPS numbers up, but generally he sucked. He also had a very high K rate but not even as bad as some other years. A lot of bad outs.

 

I don't seem to understand the meaning of the rest of this nonsense, lol. You said he looked good one year, when he wasn't.

 

In '13 he had an ISO of .225 a wOBA of .365 and a wRC+ of 130? Sit down and shut-up!

Laika Cooperstown

Laika

Community Moderator
Posted
Posted
We are talking offense.

 

He never had oWar higher then 3.6 with the Jays and that was his best year.

 

He had one year with a 1.2 oWAR and another with 1.7. while he was with the Jays.

 

One year he had 735 OPS but a .287 OBP and .225 BA. He hit some doubles and HRs which drove his OPS numbers up, but generally he sucked. He also had a very high K rate but not even as bad as some other years. A lot of bad outs.

 

learn to wRC+ man

Carlos Danger Dunedin Blue Jays

Carlos Danger

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
I don't seem to understand the meaning of the rest of this nonsense, lol. You said he looked good one year, when he wasn't.

 

In '13 he had an ISO of .225 a wOBA of .365 and a wRC+ of 130? Sit down and shut-up!

 

I said he had a good OPS one year, but still sucked. I was responding to the previous post that asked me about BA and in comparison to other stats.

 

I was not talking about '13.. 13" was the year he had the 3.6 oWAR.

 

2014- (0.6 fWAR, 0.9 rWAR over 376 plate appearances) he had a good WRC+ same year which tells you something about that stat as it does ISO.

 

REF ISO: You need to be careful because not all .200 ISO are created equally. A .250 average and .450 slugging and a .350 average and .550 slugging both return ISOs of .200 because both batters have the same rate of extra base hits per at bat, even though the latter hitter is clearly the better player overall.

 

Rasmus also had a K rate of like 32% mas o menos which is like top 5 horrible and every K is bad out.

 

The point of my original post is you need to look at totality.. On the same token that you cant just use BA (Which I agree 100%) there is not just one other metric that eliminates the need for all others.. If there was, there would be one offense metric in Fangraphs etc and that was all you would need, there isn't.

Carlos Danger Dunedin Blue Jays

Carlos Danger

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
I find it amusing that he says he understands advanced metrics, maybe learning, but does not get it.

 

I will be the first to admit I am no Bill James.. I need to look things up and find references. However, I have been doing that for a while now and I have learnt that there is not an advance metric you should put all your chips in as the be all end all.

 

There are differences among the main stat pages. There are stats that were used a few years ago that have been replaced by new and better metrics. These metrics will be replaced one day also when flaws are identified.

 

Good fun article.. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/429384-sabermetrics-the-one-stat-they-dont-know-that-matters-the-most

Spanky99 GOAT

Spanky99

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
I said he had a good OPS one year, but still sucked. I was responding to the previous post that asked me about BA and in comparison to other stats.

 

I was not talking about '13.. 13" was the year he had the 3.6 oWAR.

 

2014- (0.6 fWAR, 0.9 rWAR over 376 plate appearances) he had a good WRC+ same year which tells you something about that stat as it does ISO.

 

REF ISO: You need to be careful because not all .200 ISO are created equally. A .250 average and .450 slugging and a .350 average and .550 slugging both return ISOs of .200 because both batters have the same rate of extra base hits per at bat, even though the latter hitter is clearly the better player overall.

 

Rasmus also had a K rate of like 32% mas o menos which is like top 5 horrible and every K is bad out.

 

The point of my original post is you need to look at totality.. On the same token that you cant just use BA (Which I agree 100%) there is not just one other metric that eliminates the need for all others.. If there was, there would be one offense metric in Fangraphs etc and that was all you would need, there isn't.

 

In the year you say he he wasn't good, was a 104 wRC+ as a CF'er lol, put the pipe down. 1.4 fWar at 375 plate appearances, you don't get anything, in it's totality.

Spanky99 GOAT

Spanky99

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
I will be the first to admit I am no Bill James.. I need to look things up and find references. However, I have been doing that for a while now and I have learnt that there is not an advance metric you should put all your chips in as the be all end all.

 

There are differences among the main stat pages. There are stats that were used a few years ago that have been replaced by new and better metrics. These metrics will be replaced one day also when flaws are identified.

 

Good fun article.. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/429384-sabermetrics-the-one-stat-they-dont-know-that-matters-the-most

 

Bleacher report from 2010, bRef... lol... you are no Bill James, you are nobody. Stop digging your grave, man.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
The Jays Centre Caretaker Fund
The Jays Centre Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Blue Jays community on the internet.

Become a Caretaker

  • Member Statistics

    21,000
    Total Members
    48,845
    Most Online
    Total BS
    Newest Member
    Total BS
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...