Brownie19

I have to think it was all about locking him up before he was worth a lot more. Maybe that breakout % was higher in their minds (30%?). No idea. Twins locked up Max Kepler before this year's breakout and I bet everything thinks they are brilliant for it. The probabilities for Kepler were probably very similar to those of Grichuk. That doesn't make Minnesota's FO brilliant and Toronto's stupid.

There's a pretty large difference between the team not being 'in' on big name FA's and the big name FA's not wanting to sign here.... Also - there's very recent precedence of a big name guy signing with a s***** team with a good core of young prospects (Machado)

Clemens was signed 4 years $40M with a opt-out after year 2 (which he exercised - didn't demand his way out) BJ Ryan was in this prime, signed long term to huge money AJ Burnett Paul Molitor Russell Martin How many mega contracts did the Padres sign before Hosmer/Machado? I mean f*** man, most teams don't have a major track record of landing big name guys

https://tht.fangraphs.com/ricky-romero-has-a-story-to-tell/ little story about Ricky Ro here.

Well - he was coming off seasons of 3.0, 2.2, 1.5 and 2.1 WAR and entering his prime (ages 28-30). I suspect there were positive signs of a potential breakout (3-4 WAR player) and they wanted to lock him up before that happened - recognizing if the breakout doesn't happen, then he should remain a 2 WAR player, which isn't so awful for $11M per. If I were to guess, the probabilities were likely: Breakout - 20% Maintain Current - 70% Pumpkin - 10% In 2019 - we got the f***ing pumpkin guys. Does that make this move a bad decision? I'd argue it doesn't - it's just bad results. His GB% is up a bit this year and for some reason the power is gone (otherwise, most of the #'s all look the same). I'd suspect there's a pretty high chance he can make adjustments and return to the 2 WAR level next year - albeit his breakout chances have diminished. If I were to guess, the probabilities for Sogard this year were likely: 2.2 WAR player, Jays best positional player, traded for a couple lottery tickets - 5% Below average bench player - 20% Cut in Spring Training - 75% I mean Sogard came with absolutely no risk, but I'm not going to praise Shatkins for turning him into 2 lottery picks. They got lucky.

This narrative has got to stop. What is this based on? Shatkins didn't sign big name guys in Cleveland? The Jays didn't sign big name guys under Beeston? I mean it's by no means a lock we'll be in on these guys (and maybe we won't obviously), but to rule that possibly out completely is just dumb. Shatkins has never been in this position with the Jays (good, cost controlled young core + lots of budget available). We all have no idea how they'll approach this.

They had 48 and 43 PA's respectfully man. Give it a rest. When asked by the media, you'd prefer Atkins to say "these new guys I got - they are s***. We know they're s***, but they have some tools and there's a 1-2% chance that one of them becomes a useful bench piece. We're going to give them a very short audition to see what they've got." Seriously - worrying about what any GM says to the media is f***ing stupid. It doesn't matter who it is or what the sport is. Listening to the media or broadcasters in general is a waste of time.

^this. This is correct.

Yep - 1 guy thinks he's good. That's how it works.

fify

There are so many f***ing days off in the post season that you could do this a couple times per series without it burning out your pen. The discussion on how to fit in more playoff series is easy - eliminate all the days off and mimic the regular season (more closely).

All interesting stuff. I just assume with our modern day technology hitters have so much more data on how pitchers are attacking them. They know where their weak spots are and either work on the adjustments to improve there (or they work on laying off pitches they can't hit). Changing your swing path isn't nearly as hard as it was 10-20 years ago. While I agree it's easier for a pitcher to change grips/location, I don't think it's as hard for hitters to adjust anymore. Didn't Teo go down to AAA and work on hitting the high fastball over a month or so before returning with significant improvement? How much failure will it take for someone to try and make adjustments? I'd suggest Rys Hoskins is going to try and make those adjustments this offseason despite a 124 wRC+.

While your observation is correct - I suspect you'd find a ton of fans who love that almost every team is 'in the race' all season long and there are all kinds of battles of playoff spots. Very few teams in the NHL truly rebuild and most are 'going for it' every year as all you have to do is 'get in' and you have a shot at winning the title (unlike the NBA, where 6th thru 8th seeds are easily eliminated in the first round). That system has given teams incentive to try and win every year. The cap floor forces teams to spend money and get better, while the ceiling really is preventing dynasties. I mean in a vacuum, I probably prefer seeing different teams win every year (personally, I'm a bit tired of seeing GS or Lebron in the NBA, Brady/Pats in the NFL, Crosby/Penguins in NHL, Dodgers/Astros/Yanks/Red Sox in MLB) and in a vacuum, playoff races are much more interesting than following an MLB team that's 'out of it' by June (or were never in it at all like the 2019 Jays). Over the long run, are dynasties better for the sport? I don't know. Sure I'll remember the dominant Brady lead Pat teams for the rest of my life and I won't remember the year the Blues won the Stanley Cup...but honestly, who cares? Does that type of history have a tangible impact on the sport? I don't know the answer to that, but my guts says no. Those complaining that MLB is boring because there's no playoff races, lots of teams tanking, no incentive to winning should be careful what they wish for.

Baseball's always had an issue with teams being "out of it". Think back to when only 4 teams made the playoffs, then 6 (then 8, now 10). What's changed? Is it the amount of money involved? Fewer stupid owners/GM's? If you want more parity - add a salary cap with min and max's Is that what we want? Lots of parity? I know short term that seems great and it gives incentives to win now because you're always in it, but long term, for the history of the game, aren't powerhouse dynasties really good for the sport? (sorry if I sound like Bobcat) Don't we all recall the dominance of the Braves in the 90's and 00's? Does it really matter what fans "remember" for 20 years ago?

Agreed. Kay may be close as well - but that's based on how close he is to the majors (v. actual talent level.

Any other thoughts? For me - this is a fascinating debate. I mean if you're a hitter - aren't you spending the offseason working on your ability to handle and crush the high fastball? My casual observation is that almost every single team in baseball has made the switch and is using it as a tool to get people out right now. Why on earth would you wait 5 years? I guess the flip side is, as a hitter - would you rather pitchers attack you with the high fastball? Can they do more damage when pitchers are working (and missing) up in the zone v. when pitchers are attacking the bottom of the zone? I suspect there's enough data now that hitters, in general, should be able to say - if we had a choice, we'd rather pitchers come after us upstairs (or downstairs)

Tabby - is that you? Not liking the opener simply because you'd prefer watching strong starters navigate themselves through 7 innings is one thing (and perfectly acceptable). Not liking it because it's different and you don't understand the strategy is another (and a completely ignorant one)

How long until that trend changes? I mean everyone and their brother knows pitchers are attacking he top of the zone now to counter the upper cut swing these days. Surely to god most are already working to flatten their swings some to hit the high fastball better? Isn't there a possibility that so soon as next year, hitters won't be 'looking down in the zone'?

Great start for Tabby and Buck...they can jerk each other off about going against the shift and how dumb openers are ALL NIGHT LONG. Wonderful

f*** Abom - damn you and your facts! He's the #1 GB% pitcher in baseball (qualified). Of the top 16 GB% starters, his HR/9 is the highest. He went from giving up 0.08 HR/9 in 111 AAA innings to 1.22 in the majors. That seemed like a large jump to me (recognizing 0.08 in AAA came with a lot of luck). Now that you've called me out for being dumn, I've looked into this a bit more and even those who suppress HR's a ton in the minors seemingly give up their fair share of HRs in the majors. Point taken.

https://www.mlb.com/video/lux-collects-2-hits-in-debut Lux looks like he can hit. Mom is a coug too.

Red Sox have 3 top 10 offensive players. That's pretty insane. And who would have thought Xander Bogaerts might end up the best of the 'young SS' group (Seager, Lindor, Correa, Didi, etc.)? I sure didn't think so. Kid is a stud though.

Rendon is #1. I mentioned to friend (who follows baseball more than your average fan) that I'd love to see the Jays make a big play for him this off season and I could tell he had no idea how good he was. The man is the 4th most valuable player in baseball this year and the 3rd most valuable offensive player over the past 3 years. MLB seemingly promotes him about as well as they do Trout (yes I know Trout doesn't want the marketing - maybe Rendon doesn't either).

Good comparison. It's bizarre to see that Hudson suppressed home runs as much (if not better) than Zeuch did in the minors....yet in the majors, his HR/9 rate is at 1.22!

Lorenzo Cain turned into a pumpkin quickly...