Author Topic: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread  (Read 76610 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline zimm_da_kid

  • Posts: 6292
  • Sign all the Cubans
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2425: December 01, 2012, 08:58:53 PM »
Dickey is a vy young winner.  He has had three great years so last year was not a fluke.  Great knuckleballers can pitch well into their 40's so he should still have more very high quality seasons left in the tank.

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 2672
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2426: December 01, 2012, 09:05:20 PM »
Dickey is a vy young winner.  He has had three great years so last year was not a fluke.  Great knuckleballers can pitch well into their 40's so he should still have more very high quality seasons left in the tank.

The whole thing about not giving Dickey a long term deal is there is no way to project him.  He throws harder than any other Knuckleballer and if that pitch doesn't work for him one day, he is out serving up BP pitches to MLB hitters.  When he is on, he is awesome.  When he is off, he is incredibly hittable.  He's a great story and just because he probably will pitch into his 40s does not mean that he will put up good stats into his 40s.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17152
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2427: December 01, 2012, 09:10:43 PM »
The whole thing about not giving Dickey a long term deal is there is no way to project him.  He throws harder than any other Knuckleballer and if that pitch doesn't work for him one day, he is out serving up BP pitches to MLB hitters.  When he is on, he is awesome.  When he is off, he is incredibly hittable.  He's a great story and just because he probably will pitch into his 40s does not mean that he will put up good stats into his 40s.

Yep. The whole not having a UCL makes it even more of a risk.

Online Vega

  • Posts: 4842
  • The Classic Rodent
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2428: December 01, 2012, 09:13:52 PM »
I'd go three years, $15 million for Silly Hat. That is a well established precedent for elite late inning relievers.

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 2672
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2429: December 01, 2012, 09:28:41 PM »
I'd go three years, $15 million for Silly Hat. That is a well established precedent for elite late inning relievers.

That's probably perfect.  Just a little bit less than Affeldt and Affeldt was better so that is right in line.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 25452
  • Home of the $400 blender
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2430: December 01, 2012, 10:33:39 PM »
Lombo is much worse in the field and at the plate. Don't confuse more contact for better results.

He is not much h worse in the field. He's not as good a second baseman but he's still above average.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37074
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2431: December 01, 2012, 10:34:28 PM »
Re: Dickey - why are people saying there's no track record for knuckleballers in their 40's? I thought that pitchers in their 40's are usually knuckleballers like Hough and the Niekros (I think I saw them open for Bad Religion once).

Offline imref

  • Posts: 18098
  • 1B: The New Hot Corner
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2432: December 01, 2012, 10:51:28 PM »
lifted from mlbtr:

Quote
Adam LaRoche met with General Manager Mike Rizzo and had an open discussion about where each side stands, writes Adam Kilgore of the Washington Post.  “To be honest, it’s a years thing now,” LaRoche said. “I think they’re really wanting to stick to two years. I’m trying to talk them into lengthening that. To be honest, probably just one year. I’m not looking for four or five. I understand I’m 33 years old.  The first baseman requested the meeting to make sure that nothing got lost in translation between the front office and his representation at SFX.
Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#fztz1HEByiS4zWEp.99

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16740
  • No Trade Clause
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2433: December 01, 2012, 11:01:27 PM »
Sign him!

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 25452
  • Home of the $400 blender
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2434: December 01, 2012, 11:13:44 PM »
I like Morse on his first big contract year over Laroche.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 18098
  • 1B: The New Hot Corner
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2435: December 01, 2012, 11:40:27 PM »
Burnett's agent smacks down Lorb's tweet that Sean wants 4 years.

Poor Lorb.

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37357
  • LAC 8)
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2436: December 02, 2012, 12:57:19 AM »
agreed with PA in that Dickey will be good for years.  knuckleballer in his 40's doesn't mean squat, b/c he's a knuckleballer.

Offline aspenbubba

  • Posts: 2307
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2437: December 02, 2012, 06:07:23 AM »
C'mon Rizzo give him three. You can always dump him if he is in serious decline to an AL team at the deadline or if Rendon , Skole are ready.

Tried quoting story on it is years in the conversation between ALR and Rizzo

Offline BIGDADDYEMPIRE

  • Posts: 16
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2438: December 02, 2012, 10:12:19 AM »
dont cut off your nose to spite your face.  Sign ALR to the 3 yr deal.  Get the top starter and the left handed bullpen support.  Don't cheap out at the 11th hour!!

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 2948
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2439: December 02, 2012, 10:21:41 AM »
Any chance the Nats and LaRoche are just stalling for the sake of leverage in dealing Morse?  Just a question, because there seems to be mutual interest but not much movement.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28361
  • Hell yes!
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2440: December 02, 2012, 10:44:10 AM »
Moving Espinosa now would be like moving Desmond 12 months ago. They won't do it.

Gladston said this about Espinosa and Lombo:

Quote
The Nats are looking for a backup middle infielder. They don't consider Steve Lombardozzi or Danny Espinosa bench players. They already have signed their share of middle infielders to Minor League contracts.

This would imply that they are looking to move one of the two.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 18665
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2441: December 02, 2012, 12:02:53 PM »
Tom's points sound right to my ear.  They have a very good shortstop playing second and a starting 2d baseman as a utility guy.  Seems like you need to unpack that value in a trade for what you need, which is another starting pitcher. 

Really think this almost cries out for Espinosa and Morse to TB for Shields (add Mattheus too).  Yes, Hak Ju Lee is their top position prospect, but worse comes to worst, you shift Zobrist to the OF in 2014 and go with Lee and Espinosa.  Meanwhile, in 2013 you plug two positions for half the cost of Pena and Scott in 2012, and you simply start one of Archer, Niemann, Davis, or any of the other starters in waiting.

As for the ALR stuff, this really screams out for a 2 year plus a team option that flips to a player option based on games played or (if it can be done) some sort of repetition of last year's level of play.  Something like it becomes a player option if in either year he repeats as a silver slugger, or more directly, hits 55 HR over he length of the contract and maintains an average over .275.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17152
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2442: December 02, 2012, 12:23:57 PM »
JCA - you can't have performance based clauses in contract. Games,  at bats, starts are fine but BA, HR & Wins are not.

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 2672
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2443: December 02, 2012, 12:47:51 PM »
I'd rather spend money for Greinke over trading for Shields.  Hellickson is another story.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37074
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2444: December 02, 2012, 01:16:08 PM »
Blue, I think some of the awards-based escalators are verboten now too.

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 16617
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2445: December 02, 2012, 01:29:03 PM »
I'd rather spend money for Greinke over trading for Shields.  Hellickson is another story.

James Shields 2010-2012
xFIP... 3.55, 3.25, 3.24
K/9.... 8.28, 8.12, 8.82
K....... 187, 225, 223
IP...... 203, 249, 227
WAR.. 2.0, 4.9, 4.3

James Shields age in 2013: 31
James Shields contract: $10.5M in 2013, 2014 team option

Zack Greinke 2010-2012
xFIP... 3.60, 2.56, 3.22
K/9..... 7.40, 10.5, 8.48
K........ 181, 201, 200
IP....... 220, 171, 212
WAR... 5.1, 4.0, 5.1

Zack Greinke age in 2013: 29
Zack Greinke contract: probably extremely large

Zack Greinke is a marginally better pitcher, in that his lows are comparable to James Shields' average and his highs are higher. Plus, he's younger. But if Shields is a 4 WAR pitcher and Greinke is a 5 WAR pitcher, is it really worth $120 million to buy the extra win?

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 2672
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2446: December 02, 2012, 02:31:10 PM »
James Shields 2010-2012
xFIP... 3.55, 3.25, 3.24
K/9.... 8.28, 8.12, 8.82
K....... 187, 225, 223
IP...... 203, 249, 227
WAR.. 2.0, 4.9, 4.3

James Shields age in 2013: 31
James Shields contract: $10.5M in 2013, 2014 team option

Zack Greinke 2010-2012
xFIP... 3.60, 2.56, 3.22
K/9..... 7.40, 10.5, 8.48
K........ 181, 201, 200
IP....... 220, 171, 212
WAR... 5.1, 4.0, 5.1

Zack Greinke age in 2013: 29
Zack Greinke contract: probably extremely large

Zack Greinke is a marginally better pitcher, in that his lows are comparable to James Shields' average and his highs are higher. Plus, he's younger. But if Shields is a 4 WAR pitcher and Greinke is a 5 WAR pitcher, is it really worth $120 million to buy the extra win?

Hmm, I guess I didn't really delve into the stats enough.  I'm not a big fan of xFIP or WAR though.  Looks like FIP wise, Shields didn't fair as well but Shields also pitched in the AL East.

Offline cletusvandamme

  • Posts: 162
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2447: December 02, 2012, 02:41:40 PM »
Not buying Lombo as a starter. Not even close. Espi is good. Leave it alone.

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 16617
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2448: December 02, 2012, 02:54:58 PM »
Hmm, I guess I didn't really delve into the stats enough.  I'm not a big fan of xFIP or WAR though.  Looks like FIP wise, Shields didn't fair as well but Shields also pitched in the AL East.

I'll admit to cherry-picking xFIP over FIP to support my case  :lol: but there is also the AL East thing to consider. Also, Greinke is a lot less consistent than Shields - although he's bouncing from great to merely very, very good. Shields does have two years on Greinke, but even picking up his option we'd be letting him go at age 32.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2449: December 02, 2012, 04:26:49 PM »
I'd rather just sign Dempster or Haren than trade all that for Shields.

I'd also give Espinosa some more time to sort out his K issues.  His GG defense and ability to fill in credibly for Desmond makes him more valuable than Lombo or your standard 2B.