Eminor3rd

Cespedes is a lot like Samardzija in that (1) he's going into his age 31 season, (2) he's a 2015 free agent, and (3) his career is made up of a bunch of slightly above-average seasons and one monster year. Cespedes is UNLIKE Samardzija in that the career year came in 2015 instead of 2014. I don't want to pay for that career year. The biggest differences in Cespedes' 2014 and 2015 were a 30-point difference in BABIP and a 9% (!) difference in HR/FB%, both of which are among the least reliable year-to-year metrics for hitters. Walk rates, K-rates, swing rates, and other peripherals were about the same. I think Cespedes is a 3-win corner outfielder who just passed age 30. I don't want to pay him like he's a 6-win outfielder without a draft pick attached.

I'll always think Scott Linebrink, deserved or not.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 10, 2015 -> 04:43 PM) Funny, I started doing some research after I posted that and found this really interesting article on fangraphs as well. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/are-we-unde...he-slugger-now/ Your article did make a good bit of sense though as far as the CF/RF thing goes, although in my opinion I'd say they are assuming kind of a lot with some of their #'s. Kinda shocking to me that we are still using data that is a decade+ old to evaluate current players though. Like I said, a like of the sabr stuff still goes over my head, but I don't think it takes a mathematician to figure out that the game has changed pretty drastically since the early 00's. Maybe I'm confused -- what does that have to do with overvaluing the defensive contributions of a RF?

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 10, 2015 -> 03:26 PM) So much emphasis on defense...for a RF'er? If I'm responsible for paying an OF'er that isn't a huge run producer (Heyward isn't) he damn well better be 1 of the best defensive CF'ers in the game. I just don't see how a RF has that much impact on the game with his defense honestly. Maybe it's a crude/out dated way of looking at the game, but I just think defensive metrics have gone way out of control. Especially when we are talking about non premium defensive positions. And I am aware that Heyward is more than capable of playing CF, but there just isn't a large enough sample size of him doing it especially well for the kind of investment he's going to get in my opinion. There's been some talk/research over the last year or so about this -- there appears to be substantial evidence that the impact of a plus CF vs a plus corner OF is quite overrated. Essentially, when you control for catchability, zone overlap, and the actual difference between the high end defenders and low end ones, the CF doesn't receive nearly as many extra chances as people assume. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/does-outfie...ctually-matter/

He makes more sense to the Cards then he does to the Cubs. I think the Cards or a mystery team get him.

Older article that I thought was really interesting: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/brett-lawri...ng-balls-twice/

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/brett-lawri...ves-to-chicago/ Read More: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/brett-lawri...ves-to-chicago/

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 10, 2015 -> 10:37 AM) Frazier is not worth Anderson or Fulmer. Or Adams IMO. Two years of a 4-win third baseman at arbitration prices is unquestionably worth Adams, and I think Anderson/Fulmer are reasonable asks as well. I'm not saying I want the deal to happen, but that's what it costs.

Corbin > Miller

Good move. It's a gamble on Lawrie's upside, but if he rebounds it's a game-changer. We'll draft 10 more reliever prospects next June.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 02:53 PM) Houston would certainly be interested. Absolutely, but I don't think they're likely to offer a Stewart/Dombrowski package.

In all honesty, if that kind of overpay package still exists for Quintana, it probably only exists from the Red Sox. They have the ammo and a GM who has a history of selling prospects for dudes he likes.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 02:05 PM) This is a good point. Just because one GM is stupid enough to do a deal that some executives are calling the "worst trade they've ever seen", doesn't mean that other GMs are now equally as dumb. That being said, Quintana is a lot more valuable than Miller, so a proposal like that for Q is not at all outrageous like it was for Miller. I don't want to trade Quintana at all, and I would have been totally happy if we traded Quintana for the Miller package.

We can't get a Miller-like haul for Quintana now -- only Dave Stewart would make that deal, and Dave Stewart doesn't have enough good prospects now.

Is the "two minor league relievers" rumor busted?

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 09:47 AM) This isn't the Filibuster. Criticizing someone's religion or lack there of is not a PHT forum topic. I think his anger is more directed toward the "not here to play the game" part. Seems fair to me.

QUOTE (dpd9189 @ Dec 8, 2015 -> 11:31 PM) Bruce Levine ‏@MLBBruceLevine 34m34 minutes ago Cubs not done yet according to source . Big time outfielder next ? Hayward -Gordan - Car Go ? That's a man in a full-on struggle with his iPhone.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 12:50 AM) How would people feel about an Avi-Lawrie swap? I assume good Fantastic.

Unbelievable overpay

So see Castro WAS worth jack s*** all along.

Wow, what? Why? Gotta figure Castro and/or Baez is about to get traded.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 8, 2015 -> 11:52 AM) How is Margot a much better guy? Anderson made huge strides this year defensively, and was better offensively and coming in, he was ranked a better prospect by about 20 with MLB.com and BP, and the Phil Rogers doing the ranking BA had Margot about 20 better. The fact that Anderson also plays SS has to factor in as well. They cannot trade him unless it's a really good deal and what is coming back is going to be around awhile. I don't think Anderson being higher than Margot actually represents consensus, and I think Margot's favor has increased over the course of the season and will reflect as the newest lists come out. In commentary on the trade, I heard that some consider him a top 20 guy right now. I think consensus on Anderson is around top 50. Of course they cannot trade him unless it's a good deal -- they can't trade ANY decent prospect unless it's a good deal. My point is that Anderson should not be an "untouchable" guy -- he's a pretty run-of-the-mill mid-100 prospect with great upside and tons of risks/warts. Absolutely valuable, but absolutely not irreplaceable and commonly and rightfully used as trade currency. Like other guys of his ilk, he's still vastly more likely to bust uselessly, which is something you very frequently point out.

Anderson is good, but he's like a mid-top 100 guy. That's a valuable but very movable asset. A much better (Margot) guy just got moved for Craig Kimbrel, for example. Anderson should not be untouchable; every system;'s "number one" prospect is not the same thing.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 8, 2015 -> 10:24 AM) I doubt they eat any of it. Not their MO honestly. If that's the case, then Hahn isn't actually shopping LaRoche.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 8, 2015 -> 07:14 AM) if the sox were going to go with a big bat as many are expecting, and it will be ok for them to sacrifice a draft pick, why not Chris Davis??? His profile doesn't tend to age well: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/chris-davis...in-free-agency/