Laika

Yeah if AA was still at the helm Cutch probably would already be a Blue Jay

This is the seventh of many offseason threads where I'll take a stance and advocate for the Blue Jays to make a specific move. I may not actually think Toronto should make every move, but I'll lay out the case for it in order to generate discussion. Toronto Should Trade for Andrew McCutchen For the most part, this is a suggestion that writes itself. Nonetheless, I will try to be interesting here. Andrew McCutchen was bloody awful last year. He played through injuries and limped to a 106 wRC+, his already fringy CF defense fell off a cliff, and he ended up accruing just 0.7 fWAR. That put him as the 96th best outfielder in MLB in 2016... he was as valuable as Ezequiel Carrera and worth 0.5 wins LESS than Melvin Upton! McCutchen also pocketed $13M while sucking. He is owed $14M next year and his contract includes a 2018 team option for $14.5M. Of course, Cutch was one of the most well-rounded and valuable players in baseball up until his disastrous age 29 season. He was the rightful MVP in 2013 and deservedly finished 3rd, 3rd, and 5th in MVP voting in surrounding seasons. McCutchen's Steamer projection for 2017 of 3.3 fWAR is not necessarily very informative. That figure simply splits the difference between his terrible 2016 and his previous talent level. After a season where Cutch struck out at a higher rate than ever and ran the bases like Yonder Alonso, the fear that he has suddenly lost his athleticism and entered into a Griffey-esque precipitous drop is hard to escape. Scientifically, we should expect Cutch to regress to the mean. Unscientifically, I'm worried about the dude. But his talent, history, and the narrative of an injury plagued 2016 still make him an obvious rebound candidate on paper. If he bounces back to even 40% of his previous demonstrated talent then he'll probably be worth his contract and then some. At his Steamer Projection he's worth a lot more than his contract. For any team with a normal amount of money, in a nutshell, Cutch would be an obvious commodity to hold on to. But the Pirates aren't a normal team. Historically, the pitiful Pirates have operated with a payroll in the bottom ~5 in the entire league. For 2017, ignoring arbitration players, Cutch represents 25% of the team's total committed payroll. If Pittsburgh believes that McCutchen has gone over the hill - not an unreasonable position to take about a 30 year old in the modern game - then moving his money could make a lot of sense. The Pirates can do a lot of s*** with $14M. The team also might have a capable outfield even with Cutch out of the picture. Marte is very good, Polanco is a solid regular with immense promise, and top prospect Austin Meadows has all the talent in the world and is essentially major league ready. Young hitter Josh Bell has also dabbled in the OF a little bit. Holding onto Cutch isn't really a risk that the Pirates need to take, especially when his track record and contract will allow him to fetch a premium trade package. Rumours are flying right now that Pittsburgh is aggressively shopping the star player. Washington is said to be "in the lead" with Pittsburgh seeking elite prospect Victor Robles - a top 10 overall prospect in baseball - and then some. Joe Ross and Reynaldo Lopez, two very talented and controllable arms who have seen MLB time, are also in the mix. What could Toronto put together that would look like Robles+? Well we need to start with the team's top prospects. Prospect pundits don't indicate that Toronto has anybody comparable to Victor Robles, but they do have four guys who probably slot into a top 100 list - Vlad Jr., Alford, Sean Reid-Foley, and Richard Urena. To compete with Washington's assets Toronto would likely need to offer 2 or 3 of those names. Alford, SRF, and Urena all make a bit of sense for Pittsburgh. Alford replaces some of the outfield depth that Cutch would leave in his wake, every team appreciates high upside arms like SRF, and as a shortstop Urena would satisfy a bit of an organizational thin spot for the Pirates. Let's also assume that Pitt would ask for Dalton Pompey, a controllable outfielder with an appreciable skill-set who could help secure their outfield depth immediately. So it's Alford + SRF + Urena + Pompey (or something like that). If Cutch is worth 6-7 wins in the next two years, his surplus value would be something in the ballpark of $20M - $30M. How much are those prospects worth? Hitters in the #75-100 range are worth about $20M; pitchers in that range are worth about $15M. So we're at $55M without evaluating Pompey. But Toronto is at the peak end of the win curve, and McCutchen's immediate impact is worth more than his napkin value. Marginal wins around the 90 win level are worth considerably more than the general free agent market based $/WAR would indicate. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dUvDAtaIzO0/S9KMrSjUSxI/AAAAAAAAAD0/IwQfjXEON7Q/s400/graph1b.jpg Does Toronto's position on the win curve inflate McCutchen's expected value to the point that the hypothetical trade is fair? I really can't say for sure. I think it would be pretty close, but you can kind of crunch those numbers any way you want. Regardless, Toronto has payroll space, needs an outfielder, and is in a position where a short-term high upside risk like Cutch makes all the sense in the world. Alford, SRF, Urena, and Pompey probably aren't helping the team win very many games in 2017. When that bundle of youngsters are ready to contribute Toronto's core won't look very much like it does today. Donaldson is probably here for only two more years, so Cutch lines up perfectly to the Josh Donaldson Era of Toronto baseball. If McCutchen comes to Toronto and rebounds most of the way to what he used to be, that's a World Series winning move. Flags fly forever.

Speaking as the current Best Poster and Funniest Poster, you should try harder in 2017. The Forum Poster Awards are pretty exclusive, and very serious. You can't just be a solid normal poster of average frequency and expect to get any votes. Try being being more controversial next year, or try increasing that post count threefold.

The journal/academia system creates direct incentives to conduct biased research or fudge results. When people here tell you irrefutably, objectively, factually that you are wrong you still can't or won't see it. Something like 50% of academic papers are never read by anyone other than review peers. Get stupid/lazy/partisan peers and it's not that hard for garbage to get published. Junk science for profit is also a huge journal issue at present https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/09/29/canadian-medical-journals-hijacked-for-junk-science.html. Do I actually think you fudge results and let bias creep into your science life? Absolutely. Abso-f***ing-lutely. I will say objectively, factually, impartially, truthfully, irrefutably, that you're a dishonest scientist. I base this entirely on your baseball forum posting history. Is it possible that you live a double life, have split personalities, and are an honest person in science? Sure. I guess. I doubt it though.

Let's not rule it out though.

You are literally the most dishonest person with statistics that I have ever encountered in my entire life on the internet. If you've had one critical, objective thought in your life, I'd like to shake that thought's hand.

*are met Grant you are a living, mouth-breathing meme.

In reality, a pick that is theoretically worth $10M will probably be worth either nothing or much, much more than that. Draft picks find their expected value "in the tails". The vast majority of picks are worth nothing but the ones who make it are worth a truckload. But we can't know the talent level of a particular draft and we can't know the talent level of a particular draft pick until years down the road. A decade+. A draft that looks like s*** before it happens might have a Mike Trout somewhere in the 2nd round, making the entire thing "a great draft". So the only thing you can sensibly do is average everything out, look at the mean, treat all drafts the same, treat all 22nd overall picks the same, assign dollar values to s***, run the numbers, make decisions, and move forward.

All while rostering an elite $30M*** lefty.

The mental gymnastics aren't necessary; you can basically consider the three picks as owned property already. Just factor the $ value of the lost pick into the size of the contract needed to sign the free agent.

Yeah the value of each pick is obviously different. And the competitive timeline of the MLB team changes pick valuation as well. Here is an intense article that lands at similar values. http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-net-value-of-draft-picks/

I feel a bit out of touch with the main board this year. I don't think I'll vote, but I'd like to make shout-outs to these posters: Nox / North / Cyborg --> please come back. TRM / FTD --> RIP in pieces. Orgfiller / Atothe / 43211234 --> the most underrated posters. keep it up G-Snarls / KingKat / TheHurl / Gov --> love u mods. King --> it bugs me to admit it but this board dies without you, buddy. AdamGreenwood --> probably my personal favourite poster. BBBB --> The worst poster and it's not even close. Grant77 --> shut up, Grant. o2cui2i --> lick me where i fart u bike every DDL and LoD member --> you are the only reason I still come here.

High praise from the brass means one of two things: 1) He is good 2) He is trade-bait Didn't Nestor Molina get pumped through the roof right before getting traded?

The player still has to miss 10 games. I don't see how that is "cheap". I think the added flexibility is a good thing. It lets some players with more minor injuries go on the DL and actually get healthy, rather than play through. 15 days is just too much for some of the minor injuries players get. What's interesting is that there was a 10 day DL until 1984, then it switched to 15 days. I wonder if any of the rationale / discussion from back then could be dug up and examined. Maybe someone who was alive and sentient back then can inform us. Hurl?

The international hard cap is fantastic for parity. I just wish it was a bit more nuanced. First, it should be slightly higher. Second, it should still scale slightly based on the MLB standings. Ex., teams get a tradable bonus pool on top of their hard cap that ranges from nothing to $1M.

Wouldn't this delay their ability to sign by at least a full year? I doubt we see it. Get money now make money sooner?

It really feels like Jose is just posturing with the Blue Jays right now. It's hard to imagine other teams giving up a pick for him AND he fits Toronto's roster needs pretty well (even though we don't want to see him in the outfield anymore, he has that flexibility). I think if Jose was coming from a different organization a lot of people on the board would be pointing him out as a potential value signing in a weak FA class. Steamer still loves him - 3.0 fWAR projection, up there beside Bradley Jr., Pollock, Lorenzo Cain, Cespedes...

He's only "struggling" because he's probably looking for a $20M AAV. Jose is absolutely better and more valuable than Kendrys Morales. He could probably sign a nice 3 year deal (richer than Morales' contract) with a number of teams today if he wanted to.

Stroman 3 main reasons - Talent is a lot closer than people think (edge Sanchez) - Sanchez' arm is going to blow up at some point - Sanchez has more trade value right now and it's not close

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=28408

Yes IN THEORY positional changes shouldn't change WAR. Brett Gardner is a good example of a guy who has slid between LF and CF and his UZR at both positions follows the spectrum pretty well. The theory is necessary in order to make WAR work though so this point is a bit tautological. You've already caught on to some of the nuance. In practice, you can't just put your three outfielders wherever you want and watch them accumulate the same total WAR. It just doesn't work like this in rel life.

Yes the positional adjustment is designed so that it's a net zero.

Lourdes gets a nice projection from ZiPS: .324 wOBA, 1.7 fWAR. Roster contributor!

Dr. YOLO checks into the discussion

*Grant voice* I'm just stating facts.