Author Topic: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread  (Read 70345 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GMUNat

  • Posts: 5193
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2850: December 09, 2012, 08:05:17 PM »
Dodgers signed Ryu. Wtf.
Ryu? Wasn't he on Street Fighter? Wtf

Online imref

  • Posts: 16553
  • Like my arm slot?
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2851: December 09, 2012, 11:06:09 PM »
well, we aren't getting james shields.

Offline welch

  • Posts: 8109
  • Griff says "Call young Mr. Souza"
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2852: December 09, 2012, 11:10:01 PM »
Except our alternative to Espi, Lombardozzi, doesn't do anything after he makes contact. He has no power and actually doesn't get on base any more frequently than Espinosa. Being able to put the ball in play at a high rate isn't very valuable if those balls in play are all weak grounders and popouts.

Espi hit about 35 points in OPS better than Lombo. Is that a significant difference? Is there a measure of clutch hitting? Maybe I've come to expect Espi to strike out, just as I learned to expect Alfonso Soriano to swing at, and miss, a fast-ball down the middle but up around his eyes. Saw it so many times when Soriano was the hotshot young 2b for the Yankees.

Considering that many of Lombo's at-bats came as a late-inning replacement or a pinch-hitter, does anyone how Lombo hit when he started? What were his numbers when Desmond was on the DL?

My feeling is that a strikeout is a dead loss, but is not weighted properly in the indirect stats (the numbers based on combining other numbers). A K is one-third of an inning given up. If a sacrifice is bad, how much worse is a K? Espinosa struck-out almost 30% of the time. Usually, that is the sign of a player swing for the fences. Espinosa is not a big guy...not Morse...so persuade him to meet the ball and drive it. Seventeen homers does not balance nearly 200 K's.

Espinosa has to improve.

 

Online UMDNats

  • Posts: 11562
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2853: December 10, 2012, 08:47:40 AM »
Considering that many of Lombo's at-bats came as a late-inning replacement or a pinch-hitter, does anyone how Lombo hit when he started? What were his numbers when Desmond was on the DL?


Lombardozzi  hit .270/.309/.355 as a starter and .309/.375/.349 as a replacement.

As a pinch hitter, Lombardozzi hit .308/.379/.385

Online natspride

  • Posts: 93
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2854: December 10, 2012, 08:54:33 AM »
I see Lombo has alot of advocates on this board but I ask you to consider something:


If Lombo replaces Espi we are losing alot of power.....especially when you consider the fact that Denard Spann is now our CF.



Just something to consider...........

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 20520
  • Trade for Zobrist
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2855: December 10, 2012, 09:04:30 AM »
I see Lombo has alot of advocates on this board but I ask you to consider something:


If Lombo replaces Espi we are losing alot of power.....especially when you consider the fact that Denard Spann is now our CF.



Just something to consider...........

Losing a lot more strikeouts and gaining someone you can hit and run with. And Lombo is a much better hitter against righties.

Offline kirubel94

  • Posts: 675
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2856: December 10, 2012, 10:05:49 AM »
I am i the only one who thinks that the Royals gave up a LITTLE too much for James Shields?

Offline BIGDADDYEMPIRE

  • Posts: 16
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2857: December 10, 2012, 10:21:23 AM »
still waiting for JP Howell & Laroche to sign so I can move on with my life...

Online Kevrock

  • Posts: 10738
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2858: December 10, 2012, 10:21:39 AM »
I am i the only one who thinks that the Royals gave up a LITTLE too much for James Shields?

lol

Online NJ Ave

  • Posts: 1118
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2859: December 10, 2012, 11:00:54 AM »
Losing a lot more strikeouts and gaining someone you can hit and run with. And Lombo is a much better hitter against righties.

I gotta support this - it's usually a great idea to hit and run with your number 8 hitter in an NL lineup.

Oh wait...

Otherwise I don't know if you wanted to put Lombardozzi in the 2-hole, which would prioritize the at bats of an inferior hitter to everyone batting behind him, all for the sake of having a successful hit and run every other series.

No, the addition of Span should make everything right in this lineup. Even if you want to move Espinosa to 8th and bat the C 7th, he's a great fit for the 8th spot in an NL lineup. Knock 'em in or strikeout and let the pitcher pitch another inning.

Offline TheCerebral1

  • Posts: 73
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2860: December 10, 2012, 11:42:01 AM »
So it's basically down to Baltimore and Washington for LaRoche.  Is there really much difference between a two or three year deal.  If he does well he can resign for similar money at 35-36.  However,  I understand maximizing in the inflated market place.

Online Kevrock

  • Posts: 10738
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2861: December 10, 2012, 11:47:19 AM »
So it's basically down to Baltimore and Washington for LaRoche.  Is there really much difference between a two or three year deal.  If he does well he can resign for similar money at 35-36.  However,  I understand maximizing in the inflated market place.

Stability for his family. Three years in one city is better than two years.

Online NJ Ave

  • Posts: 1118
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2862: December 10, 2012, 11:47:49 AM »
Not to be too snarky, but there's a difference of about $10-12 million, or about a third of what he's made in his entire career thus far.

I'd hold out too.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27273
  • Hell yes!
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2863: December 10, 2012, 12:08:59 PM »
Not to be too snarky, but there's a difference of about $10-12 million, or about a third of what he's made in his entire career thus far.

I'd hold out too.

Only if you assume his earnings potential in free agency year 3 is nil.  Else, you have to assume some value that reduces the difference you cite.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 14452
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2864: December 10, 2012, 12:11:05 PM »
Only if you assume his earnings potential in free agency year 3 is nil.  Else, you have to assume some value that reduces the difference you cite.

The third year is insurance against injury and ineffectiveness. If I had a shot at a guaranteed third year at a set price vs. the injury/aging risk, I'd hold out too. 

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27273
  • Hell yes!
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2865: December 10, 2012, 12:16:57 PM »
The third year is insurance against injury and ineffectiveness. If I had a shot at a guaranteed third year at a set price vs. the injury/aging risk, I'd hold out too.

You can't make that decision in a vacuum.  How much does the 3rd year pay?  How old is the player, does he project to fall off sharply in performance or maintain?  What will the market be like after 2 more seasons?

Sure, getting a 3rd year reduces the risk for the player, but it is completely misleading to compare the TCV of a 3 year deal to that of a 2 year deal and treat the $ difference as if the player were completely unable to have earnings year 3. 

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 14452
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2866: December 10, 2012, 12:19:08 PM »
You can't make that decision in a vacuum.  How much does the 3rd year pay?  How old is the player, does he project to fall off sharply in performance or maintain?  What will the market be like after 2 more seasons?

Sure, getting a 3rd year reduces the risk for the player, but it is completely misleading to compare the TCV of a 3 year deal to that of a 2 year deal and treat the $ difference as if the player were completely unable to have earnings year 3. 

You're right, but I've I can't recall ever seeing the final year of a contract tail off significantly, and it's a safe assumption that his value will be higher now than two years from now

Online NJ Ave

  • Posts: 1118
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2867: December 10, 2012, 12:19:42 PM »
Only if you assume his earnings potential in free agency year 3 is nil.  Else, you have to assume some value that reduces the difference you cite.

I'm sure Aubry Huff thought he would have no problem getting a decent deal 2 years after signing his 2/$22 million deal coming off a 6.2 WAR year in San Francisco. After all, he was only 33, plenty of time to make more cash, right?

I think $0 is always a good assumption of how much more money you'll make after a deal ends in your mid-30s.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27273
  • Hell yes!
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2868: December 10, 2012, 12:34:52 PM »
I'm sure Aubry Huff thought he would have no problem getting a decent deal 2 years after signing his 2/$22 million deal coming off a 6.2 WAR year in San Francisco. After all, he was only 33, plenty of time to make more cash, right?

I think $0 is always a good assumption of how much more money you'll make after a deal ends in your mid-30s.

He's still projected to have positive WAR in 2015 so there will likely be some value, the only question is how much.  The changes in the CBA and in the RSN environment are driving compensation upwards sharply right now. 

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 14452
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2869: December 10, 2012, 12:42:14 PM »
The changes in the ... RSN environment are driving compensation upwards sharply right now. 

even more reason to lock in a salary when the TV money looks inexhaustible

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27273
  • Hell yes!
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2870: December 10, 2012, 12:50:50 PM »
even more reason to lock in a salary when the TV money looks inexhaustible

I don't think anyone is saying he shouldn't take a 3rd year if he can get it.

However, unless you believe (like NJ does) that he'll have zero value in the third year, then he should make a projection about his worth then - risk adjusted - and use that to evaluate offers.

There's another point to be made.  Adam enjoys a quiet, rural existence when not in season.  Huntin', fishin', cattle.  He's already got enough to live comfortably the rest of his days, and 2 more years at $13m per year would just be piling on more where it's not really likely to do much for his lifestyle.  Maybe 2 and out works really well for him.  After all, bass are on the beds when he'd otherwise be in spring training.   :shrug:


Online NJ Ave

  • Posts: 1118
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2871: December 10, 2012, 12:53:15 PM »
You can say that with him coming off a career year, and as I pointed out the same was true of Aubrey Huff 2 years ago, and isn't true anymore.

After 3 of the past 5 years, I would say that LaRoche wouldn't have been projected to have any value at all in 2015.

In any case, this is not a controversial statement to make: ML 1st basemen who are 1/9 in career years above 2.5 WAR shouldn't count on much of a bidding war if they're 35-year old free agents.

Offline Terpfan76

  • Posts: 3776
  • ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2872: December 10, 2012, 12:57:53 PM »
I gotta support this - it's usually a great idea to hit and run with your number 8 hitter in an NL lineup.

Oh wait...

Otherwise I don't know if you wanted to put Lombardozzi in the 2-hole, which would prioritize the at bats of an inferior hitter to everyone batting behind him, all for the sake of having a successful hit and run every other series.

No, the addition of Span should make everything right in this lineup. Even if you want to move Espinosa to 8th and bat the C 7th, he's a great fit for the 8th spot in an NL lineup. Knock 'em in or strikeout and let the pitcher pitch another inning.

Yeah... I like Lombo and all, but to me, he's a really good utility player/spot starter and nothing more. He's a good guy to have on the team, but Espi brings more to the table as far as defense, base running and power. Not to mention the fact that he deserves the chance to show if he can make adjustments to his K percentage. Now if we get offered a great trade for him, then that's different, but at this point, Espi>>Lombo.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27273
  • Hell yes!
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2873: December 10, 2012, 01:00:46 PM »
You can say that with him coming off a career year, and as I pointed out the same was true of Aubrey Huff 2 years ago, and isn't true anymore.

After 3 of the past 5 years, I would say that LaRoche wouldn't have been projected to have any value at all in 2015.

In any case, this is not a controversial statement to make: ML 1st basemen who are 1/9 in career years above 2.5 WAR shouldn't count on much of a bidding war if they're 35-year old free agents.

He had a terrible 2011, on which a WAR projection of 0.3 for 2015 was partly based.  See the BP player profile I've attached, which does NOT factor in his 2012 standout season.  2012 will drive his 2015 projection up a tick but isn't needed to emphasize the point I'm making - that he projects to have value in 2015.

Note that he was projected to have a WAR of 1.5 in 2012 but ended up at 3.6.


Offline Terpfan76

  • Posts: 3776
  • ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2874: December 10, 2012, 01:03:57 PM »
You can say that with him coming off a career year, and as I pointed out the same was true of Aubrey Huff 2 years ago, and isn't true anymore.

After 3 of the past 5 years, I would say that LaRoche wouldn't have been projected to have any value at all in 2015.

In any case, this is not a controversial statement to make: ML 1st basemen who are 1/9 in career years above 2.5 WAR shouldn't count on much of a bidding war if they're 35-year old free agents.

Hasn't LaRoche been a pretty steady .250/25/90 hitter over his careere or so minus a injury plagued 2011 season? I really wouldn't make a big deal about his so called "career year" considering by the numbers, it's not that much better than his career norms. How does the park he plays in and the players he plays with come into play also.