JosephC

Figures the Red Sox (probably along with the Dodgers) are trying to soak a smaller market (relative to LA/Boston) in this trade. Completely predictable. What...the Dodgers have one of the best farm systems in baseball and they cannot throw another modest prospect to bridge the gap? After all, what team is getting Mookie Betts in this deal? If I were the Twins, I couldn't walk away from this deal fast enough.

I think the workout pretty much eliminates Walker from major league contract status, but he still should be a split contract or minor league contract guy. His last full season he threw the fastball <60% of the time, and threw a slider, curveball, change-up all at least 10% of the time. His fastball has been by far his most effective pitch, but it's not like he's been a two-pitch guy. He has been a 4-pitch guy in the past and probably is at the point where he needs to re-make himself, work on pin-point fastball location and change speeds off that with the 3 other pitches. The guy is still only 27 years old and should be an interesting project for one of the MLB franchises.

BINGO!

It's all crap. https://theathletic.com/1587470/2020/02/06/rosenthal-three-team-mookie-betts-trade-held-up-may-be-adjusted-over-medical-review/ From the article: "The Red Sox, after viewing the medical records of Twins right-hander Brusdar Graterol, projected him more as a reliever than as a starter, according to sources involved with the discussions." How does a pitcher's medical record show that he's more likely to be future reliever rather than a starter? Wouldn't that come from a scouting report? Do the Red Sox no longer have scouts? There is nothing out there that is a secret about Graterol. Graterol had Tommy John surgery in the past, and he missed two months of this last season with a shoulder impingement but was back on the mound in September throwing 101 MPH. Now how would his medical record indicate he's a reliever, not a starter? If his arm is about to fall off, wouldn't that mean that he cannot pitch at all? Note the Red Sox are not saying they don't want Gratesol because of his past injuries (widely known) or because he's too fat (which a second grader can figure out by looking at the height/weight measurement). The big key in this is that they aren't saying they don't want Graterol, which really should be the case if they have a significant concern with his medicals. What they are saying is they want more, with some flimsy excuse about the medicals saying he's a starter and not a reliever, which really doesn't make any sense at all. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out, if the Red Sox try to bully the Dodgers or the Twins for another prospect/player. Or if the Red Sox and Dodgers gang up and try to bully the Twins out of another prospect. Personally, if I were the Twins, I couldn't walk away from this trade fast enough. We'll see if the Dodgers pony up more? If I were them, I'd say I'd throw in another fringe prospect but would also demand the Dodgers send an additional 6 million to pay for even more of Price's bad contract (on top of all the money they are already shipping to LA).

I'd make him the best offer the Brewers could make him at the end of this upcoming season (probably something like 5 years, 160 million...which would put him under control for 7 years total since there would still be 2 years left on his current deal). And when he rejects it, I would look to trade him. I just think a small market team like Milwaukee needs to get back "2 years of value" for a player of this quality. There was one point during this off-season where I would have floated his name out there, but I would have put such a high price-tag on him that my chances of dealing him would have been <1%.

I'd calculate the surplus values in the deal as follows: Betts = +36 million Price = -60.9 million Verdugo = +75.5 million Graterol = +18.9 million Maeda = +1.8 million

The only thing that interests me in Bettis is his ground ball rate. There have been 149 pitchers that have thrown at least 180 innings over the last two years and Bettis ranks 6th in ground ball rate. Just looking at the stat sheet, he's pretty similar to Brett Anderson. Low strikeout, ground ball pitchers that come with durability questions. Anderson does do better in avoiding walks (Anderson = 2.18 BB/9, Bettis = 3.33 BB/9 over the last two years). But compensating for park/home runs allowed...Anderson has been a 4.51 xFIP pitcher and Bettis has been a 4.67 xFIP pitcher over the last two years.

What's really disgusting is that MLB (and perhaps the MLBPA as a willing co-conspirator) has somehow convinced a large segment of the population that no players could be suspended because of "cooperation issues." What hogwash. The original article from The Athletic - https://theathletic.com/1363451/2019/11/12/the-astros-stole-signs-electronically-in-2017-part-of-a-much-broader-issue-for-major-league-baseball/ - states that Mike Fiers and THREE OTHER PEOPLE from within the Astros organization claimed this was going on. With available video/audio and admissions from four different individuals from within the organization, it's completely ridiculous to think that there wasn't enough evidence to suspend the players that were involved. I'd really love to see reporters really go after MLB on this, because the more evidence that come to light, the more obvious it is that players should have been suspended. Why should the public be satisfied with a couple expendables getting the scapegoat treatment, while letting the money-making assets get off scot-free? The reporters should also be all over MLB about where that 5 million dollar fine goes after it heads back to the league office. Needless to say, baseball should do the right thing and donate that money to a worthy charity. Considering how much revenue they generate, and how much money they swindle from the public in stadium deals...a 5 million dollar donation is the LEAST that they could do. Somehow it wouldn't surprise me much at all if the money gets funneled right back to Jim Crane.

After taking another look at the current bullpen makeup, I would have been all for opening the wallet and adding Phelps AND Strop.

I use the 9 million because that's what the Point of Pittsburgh blog used to calculate prospect surplus values and, primarily, I want to keep major leaguers on the same scale just to make my life easier. However, I think the 9 million per WAR works best when doing these trade value judgements and let me use an example to illustrate why. Betts in on a 1 year deal for 27 million and then he is eligible for free agency. Using bWAR/fWAR data, I've estimated him as a 7 WAR player for 2020. Sogard is on a 1 year plus option year for 4 million in 2020 and then a minimum 500k buyout for 2021. For simplicity, let's just say he's on a 1 year, 4.5 million dollar deal and is a free agent after the season. I would estimate him as a 1.1 WAR player for 2020, just took the average bWAR/fWAR over the last three years to come up with that figure. Let's use the 9 million per WAR estimate: Betts = 7 WAR * 9 = 63 million - 27 million in salary = +36 million in surplus value Sogard = 1.1 WAR * 9 = 9.9 million - 4.5 million in salary = +5.4 million in surplus value Let's use the 5 million per WAR estimate: Betts = 7 WAR * 5 = 35 million - 27 million in salary = +8 million in surplus value Sogard = 1.1 WAR * 5 = 5.5 million - 4.5 million in salary = +1 million in surplus value It initially looks like Betts holds more value using the 5 million per WAR estimate. +8 for Betts / +1 for Sogard gives Betts an 8x advantage. However, IMO completely fails when taking into account the real world money aspect of the deal. Which is the two following would likely considered to be a more even trade. 5 WAR model = Team A gets Betts (+8 million in surplus value), Team B gets Sogard (+1 million in surplus value) + 7 million in cash 9 WAR model = Team A gets Betts (+36 million in surplus value), Team B gets Sogard (+5.4 million in surplus value) + 30.6 million in cash So not only for the Point of Pittsburgh prospect surplus value estimates, I use the 9 million/WAR number for reasons illustrated in the Betts/Sogard example above.

When calculating Betts surplus value, just want to double-check you accounted for what he will be paid in 2020? Is the current cost of 1.0 war = $9M? Yes, 7 WAR * 9 = 63 - 27 million in salary = 36 million in surplus value.

No. Because a comp pick would not directly be involved in a deal. If Betts was traded to the Padres, and the Padres turned out to be bad and they decided to flip Betts in July, then San Diego wouldn't get back "comp pick value" in the trade because the next team isn't getting a comp pick as it would be a mid-season acquisition. But Betts would be unlikely to move in-season if the Dodgers acquired him. So in that situation it would make sense to consider a future comp pick as part of the value of the deal. I prefer to keep future comp picks out of the equation when figuring surplus value. That's not to say it should be ignored after a deal is made, at that point we can look at the player/teams involved and try to judge how a future comp pick contributes to the deal.

Contender in what way? Contender in that they are able to stay within 3 or 4 games of a wildcard spot throughout the season? Yes, I think their lineup is good enough to achieve that. Contender in that they will make the playoffs and will be considered one of the five or six best teams once they get there? No, I don't think the pitching (handicapped by poor infield defense plus Narvaez) will be good enough.

You might want to watch what you eat and where you catch up on the trade news... Senzel is exactly the type of player the Tribe is looking for as part of a return package for Lindor.. Am I pushing for a Tribe trade of Lindor to Cinci? No. Do I think it would take more than Senzel to get Lindor? Oh Yes. The fact Cleveland & Cinci have a history of deals between them (see Sean Casey (in 1998), Brandon Phillips (in 2006) Trevor Bauer (last year)) helps the possibility of a Lindor deal. If the Indians are looking for Senzel-plus as a return for Lindor, then they want to keep Lindor in an Indian's uniform. IMO, Senzel has more surplus value than Lindor and the TradeValue site agrees with that.

Attanasio is probably reading this thread and thinking he'll cut payroll by another 20 million dollars next year if these fraud fans keep buying counterfeits.

No conjecture needed. https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/college/uw/2020/01/27/uw-face-iowa-without-redshirt-sophomore-guard-kobe-king/4586669002/ Pretty good chance that King was told to stay home and figure out if he wants to be part of the team or not.

Initially, I thought this was a terrible deal for Pittsburgh. However, Marte's DRS dropped from +1 in 2018 to -9 in 2019 and his UZR/150 dropped from 4.4 to -8.3. Could be a pretty solid indicator of an age decline (2020 will be his age 31 season). I'm figuring Marte would need to be good for 4.5 WAR total over the next two years. He was a 3 WAR player last year so if he maintains that then this is a real good deal for the Diamondbacks, but if he slips it will probably wind up being a pretty even trade.

With the Betts for Myers + prospects (San Diego) trade rumors from a few days ago, I went and did some math on these guys. Just taking the 3 year numbers for Betts, he's been an average 7.7 bWAR/fWAR player the last three years. However, that number is inflated because of a really high 10.65 bWAR/fWAR in 2018. Personally, I think he should be valued more around 7 WAR and, if so, his surplus value is +36 million (would be +42.3 million if using 7.7 WAR). Personally, I think it would be really hard for the Red Sox to get more than 36 million in value back for a player that is only under contract for one more year and will for sure be testing free agency next off-season. The BaseballTradeValue site has him at +50.7 million and IMO that's a crazy number for one year of a guy. Price's contract looks pretty horrible. Over the last three years he's been a 2.3 bWAR/fWAR player per season. Then we go with subtracting 0.5 WAR per season due to his age. That puts him at 1.8 + 1.3 + 0.8 = 3.9 WAR total over the next three years. Since he earns 96 million over those three seasons, I have him at a whopping -60.9 million in surplus value. The BaseballTradeValue site has him at -55.3 million, so our numbers are pretty close there. Bottom line is that Betts' positive value does not offset Price's negative value. I would be interested to know just how much of Price's contract the Red Sox would be willing to eat? Since the Padres and Wil Myers came up a couple days ago... I have Wil Myers being much less of a negative than the TradeValues site (I have Myers at -33.1, the TradeValue site has him at -55.3). There would be nothing wrong value-wise with a Betts + Price for Myers + 1 back end of top 300 prospect...but I just don't think the Padres could take on both the Betts and Price contracts (even when subtracting the Myers deal)...the Red Sox would have to include a big chunk of cash which would really bump up the prospect return. Just for the crazy deal that will never happen, let's speculate on putting all these pieces in a deal that I think would represent fair value. Surplus values are my surplus values, not from the TradeValue site: Padres get: OF - Mookie Betts (+36 million) LHP - David Price (-60.9 million) 30 million dollars Red Sox get: OF/IF - Wil Myers (-33.1 million) C - Luis Campusano (23.3 million) RHP - Michel Baez (14.3 million)

MLB Pipeline has updated the top 100 and no Brewer on the list. Have to admit that I'm surprised that these lists are coming out and Small is not #2 on the Brewer's list. Just seemed that all the post draft talk was about Small was overlooked and should have been rated higher...more along the lines of where the Brewers took him and not in the 50-60 range...with talk like that I thought he'd be a solid #2 ahead of Lutz. Lutz is sure getting a ton of mileage off of pre-draft workout(s).

https://theathletic.com/1555626/2020/01/23/the-new-3-batter-minimum-rule-wont-speed-up-games-but-will-have-negative-unintended-consequences/ Unintended Consequences! Gotta love it!

IMO, the biggest "blah" in the NFL Hall of Fame is Lynn Swann.

Since pretty much all MLB teams have been going with the 13 pitchers/12 hitters breakdown under the old rules, I'm really hoping that the 13th hitter evolves into a "late inning pinch-running specialist" for most teams. That way, in all close games each teams can pinch-run that guy in the 8th/9th inning and then fans will be treated to the "10 tosses to first" during every at-bat with that fast guy on 1B. We all know how absolutely thrilling that will be. Best part will be Manfred saying "unintended consequence" just like the average dumb politician. "We'll need a new rule to fix that."

Aaron Sanchez will, at best, probably miss the first four/five months of next season...but more than likely will probably miss all of 2020. https://www.cbssports.com/fantasy/baseball/news/astros-aaron-sanchez-could-miss-all-of-2020/

Deceptive numbers IMO. Packers had some good pass-rushing statistics, but the defense still ranked 20th in yards allowed per pass play against. Not very good. They were 24h in the league in yards allowed per run play against. Sacks and turnovers can make a big difference in the regular season, but it's hard to rely on turnovers and sacks against playoff teams that generally will have better quarterbacks and offensive linemen. Also think it's really unfair to put the run defense problems Lowry, Lancaster and Martinez. Za'Darius Smith is not a good player against the run. He loves to gamble and jump into the wrong gap. He also is a hustler when going after the QB but is definitely not a hustler when it comes to chasing a running back downfield. Frankly, I thought the biggest problem the Packers had on Sunday was that the Smith's got smacked around early and looked like they pretty much gave up (wouldn't be a bit surprised if LaFleur's comments were aimed directly at those two guys). It also doesn't help that the Packers still haven't found a decent linebacker to pair with Martinez. B.J. Goodson played 39 snaps this past weekend, but he clearly is not one of their better players. Goodson hit 40 snaps in the Oakland game. But in the 9 games he played in between the Oakland game and this last weekend's game, he only played an average of 11 defensive snaps per game. Shanahan must have been licking his chops when looking at the film leading up to this game. He knew he was facing a defense that has been 100% built to stop the pass and he had the players to just completely pummel the defense. And did he ever. Halfway through the second quarter I couldn't help but think that this looked like a Wisconsin versus Weber State game.

I remember when Robbie Gould wanted 3 million per year and the dumb GM said he wasn't going to let a kicker make that type of demand and showed Gould the door. That one worked out real well. The same Robbie Gould that hit 74% of his kicks this year while Piniero hit 82? And while Parkey wasn't good in 2018, he wasn't 2012 Crosby bad, either. He was lights out in 2017, was a little bit worse than average in 2018 and the Bears made an impulsive emotional decision to dump him because of one playoff kick that wasn't even his fault. The same Robbie Gould that has hit 90.5% of his regular season field goal attempts since the Bears dumped him and is 5/5 in the playoffs this year.