Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

2019-2020 Off-Season and Hot Stove Thread


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, kmoore1521 said:

According to USA Today's Bob Nightengale, Ross Stripling is being traded to the Angels along with Joc Pederson.

 

Interesting.  One less arm in the LAD SP logjam is good news for Wood, Urias, May, and Gonsolin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 941
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Happy Pitchers and Catchers Report Day to all! Not sure if this is the place to put this, but indulge me for a few minutes if you feel like it. I have to admit this is the fourth year I've gotten sent

Michael Schur, creator of Parks & Rec and The Good Place, blasts one into the bleachers: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1224882392369786880.html?refreshed=yes  

FASTBALL:     CURVE:       CHANGE:        

Posted Images

i count three posters (so far) claiming that betts isn't "generational" or "elite." maybe the terms are bad, and we're arguing semantics at this point, but since 2015, betts' first full season, he's the #2 player in baseball by a fairly wide margin based on fWAR. 35.4 for betts followed by bryant at #3 with 27.8.

if anyone can show me how to [easily] find this same data on bb-ref, i'd be glad to hear/see differences and compare.

according to mlb statcast / savant, since their tracking began in 2016, betts is the fourth best outfielder behind only inciarte, cain, and hamilton.

the second best player in baseball over the past five years isn't considered elite? a fantastic defender, who's a career .300 hitter with pop and speed and just one year removed from putting up the best overall single season in the last 10 years.

what in the world am i reading...

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, osb_tensor said:

i count three posters (so far) claiming that betts isn't "generational" or "elite." maybe the terms are bad, and we're arguing semantics at this point, but since 2015, betts' first full season, he's the #2 player in baseball by a fairly wide margin based on fWAR. 35.4 for betts followed by bryant at #3 with 27.8.

if anyone can show me how to [easily] find this same data on bb-ref, i'd be glad to hear/see differences and compare.

according to mlb statcast / savant, since their tracking began in 2016, betts is the fourth best outfielder behind only inciarte, cain, and hamilton.

the second best player in baseball over the past five years isn't considered elite? a fantastic defender, who's a career .300 hitter with pop and speed and just one year removed from putting up the best overall single season in the last 10 years.

what in the world am i reading...

Well put. I would say he is prob even an elite defender too... This is a baseball trade, so more than just offensive/fantasy stats.

According to SportInfoSolutions since 2016 here is the list of Most Defensive Runs Saved among OFs:

Mookie Betts 94

Kevin Kiermaier 73

Lo Cain 55

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, osb_tensor said:

 

what in the world am i reading...


does your analysis factor in that re signing him would make a team less financially flexible ? If a team signs him maybe they can’t sign another Mookie Betts.

Edited by brockpapersizer
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, osb_tensor said:

i count three posters (so far) claiming that betts isn't "generational" or "elite." maybe the terms are bad, and we're arguing semantics at this point, but since 2015, betts' first full season, he's the #2 player in baseball by a fairly wide margin based on fWAR. 35.4 for betts followed by bryant at #3 with 27.8.

if anyone can show me how to [easily] find this same data on bb-ref, i'd be glad to hear/see differences and compare.

according to mlb statcast / savant, since their tracking began in 2016, betts is the fourth best outfielder behind only inciarte, cain, and hamilton.

the second best player in baseball over the past five years isn't considered elite? a fantastic defender, who's a career .300 hitter with pop and speed and just one year removed from putting up the best overall single season in the last 10 years.

what in the world am i reading...

I don't think anyone said Betts isn't elite. To me "elite" means one of the best i.e. top 1-2%. I said this term is overused but not in a relation to Betts. I would say Betts is elite.

Generational to me means, once or twice in a generation. A generation is considered 30 years. Will he go down as one of the top 1-2 players over the last 30 years ? Maybe when it's all said done, but IMO, I doubt it. Three of his 5 years he's ranked outside of the top 10 in WAR. That doesn't scream generational player to me. Trout, Pujos, Bonds would be generational type players IMO. (I understand Bonds is somewhat controversial, feel free to disagree, I don't want to steer this into a PED discussion).  If you have to think about whether someone is a generational player, they probably aren't. But like you said, this may all be semantics and everyone may have their own definition of what these terms mean and who is what.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fletch44 said:

I don't think anyone said Betts isn't elite. To me "elite" means one of the best i.e. top 1-2%. I said this term is overused but not in a relation to Betts. I would say Betts is elite.

Generational to me means, once or twice in a generation. A generation is considered 30 years. Will he go down as one of the top 1-2 players over the last 30 years ? Maybe when it's all said done, but IMO, I doubt it. Three of his 5 years he's ranked outside of the top 10 in WAR. That doesn't scream generational player to me. Trout, Pujos, Bonds would be generational type players IMO. (I understand Bonds is somewhat controversial, feel free to disagree, I don't want to steer this into a PED discussion).  If you have to think about whether someone is a generational player, they probably aren't. But like you said, this may all be semantics and everyone may have their own definition of what these terms mean and who is what.

 

 

 

 

 


As someone already said . It’s semantics.  If there’s only one generational player in the league at a time , then Mookie isn’t it. Basically any other implementation of this term that has no concrete definition and he is. I’ve seen generational talent apply to a number of players in the league besides Trout.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OaksterDan said:

Yeah we all know how concerned you are about the Sox the 12 million a year they were paying in luxury tax.  Totally worth mailing in a season to avoid that!  I'm done going around in circles, let's just agree to disagree: I care about the team I root for trying to win; you care about their profit margins.  That's ok!  

And, I didn't say Henry was cheap, I said this trade was made to benefit his bank account.  One can be true without the other.

Devers contract could replace JDs which would be off the books by then.  The idea a team that takes in $516 million a year PLUS whatever it is they make off NESN can't afford Betts and Devers is the most laughable of all the stupid Sox ownership garbage you regurgitate on here.  

You really do not understand luxury tax NON monetary penalties do you?  You are the one that doesn't care about the team long term.  10 or 12 year Betts contract would destroy the Sox for  a decade. 

I want them to win.  Not end up with a Jacoby Ellsbury/Yankees albatross contract with Betts.  Remember when Jacoby was suppose to be the generational player for the Sox?  I do.  Remember when some fans got ballistic when the Yankees got him?  I bet you do.  I bet you may well have been one of them then too.  Always wanting to hold onto a player several years too long.  That isn't how modern baseball works.

As for John Henry?  So what if he is rich.  Only rich guys can own teams.  So why are you so livid about it?.  You jealous?  He uses tons and tons of his loot on this team.  Hell he even takes profits from his far more profitable Liverpool soccer club and plows them back into the Sox as well.  He doesn't have to own sports teams to live a more than comfortable life style. He chooses to because that is his passion and he has poured tons of money into his passion.  He isn't some cheap idiot like Yawkey and later the Yawkey trust were.  He has helped break the curse and bring 4 rings to the Red Sox.  So stop already with Henry is only doing this to line his pockets.  His pockets are already lined and he isn't about saving money this year for himself. 

Bottom line is the freaking team cannot afford to lose top draft picks and international signings.  How hard it that for you to understand?  You really good on missing out signing the next Devers or Bogaerts because your pool for int'l players got capped hard by these penalties?  Bloom and Henry are trying to save the team long term.  This isn't a fast food sport. This is looking at the big picture.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SpecialFNK said:

what is the Dodgers rotation? Kershaw, Beuhler, Price, and? Nelson? Wood? May? Urias? a lot of questions including both Kershaw and Price with injuries.


RR says Wood/Urias now. I’d imagine May will get a dozen starts or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From a pure value standpoint. Without competitive context. The Red Sox did great here. There is an argument here about why the financial flexibility is necessary for the long term health of the franchise. Being able to extend Devers and Benintenti, etc etc.

Yet you keep undercutting your own points by downplaying just how great of a player Betts is and how hard it is to make up for his production. Ellsbury is was not what Betts is. Ellsbury had that one great year and he never repeated that power output again.

The counter argument is not about the value of the trade, it's not even about extending Betts. It's how Boston's competitive window was better this year then it will be for the next 2 years after that. Downplaying what their actual chances were because on paper the Yankees and Rays appear better. 2 Teams, that are not likely to get worse in the next 3 years.

 

If the goal is play for 2023 and beyond. Then just blow it and build the next roster around Devers and maybe Benintenti if he improves. If Xander is still good, he is going to opt out. If the goal is to bounce back in 2021. Even with the financial flexibility. They are still going to be a worse team then they would have been this year with Betts on his last year. IMO

You can dis-agree, that is just how I see it personally.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

LAD are stacked... But trying to win a world series with two of the worst post season performers (Kershaw, Price) in recent history?? Good lord they need to rethink that.

Shove Price into the bullpen come October and make Los Angeles Walker Dodger your #1 for postseason play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad news for the Yankees as they aren't over their injury bug it seems:

Quote

James Paxton underwent a microscopic lumbar discectomy on Wednesday and is expected to be sidelined 3-4 months.

The surgery was necessary to remove a peridiscal cyst. This news obviously comes with terrible timing given that Yankees pitchers and catchers are due to report to spring training next week. Paxton, who has battled injuries throughout his career, is likely to miss a large chunk of the first half of the 2020 regular season. Jordan Montgomery, Luis Cessa, Jonathan Loaisiga, and Mike King will be in the running for the final spot in the Yankees' Opening Day rotation.

Source: Yankees PR on Twitter           Feb 5, 2020, 3:54 PM ET

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, WahooManiac said:

Good thing the nats didn't think that way last year.  Boston is soft, grow a pair and get in the mix

Maybe not the best example since they lost arguably their best player the year before too but they got nothing for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, fletch44 said:

Maybe not the best example since they lost arguably their best player the year before too but they got nothing for him.

Maybe not the best example since while they lost arguably their best player they signed a  9 figure deal to bring in an elite starter who went 200 IP and pitched a lot in the playoffs. They don't win a championship without him.

Edited by brockpapersizer
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun fact. In 2004 the Red Sox had a free agent to be at the end of the year. They opted to deal said free agent Mr Garciaparra at the trade deadline, they proceeded to win the world series.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, turner46 said:

Fun fact. In 2004 the Red Sox had a free agent to be at the end of the year. They opted to deal said free agent Mr Garciaparra at the trade deadline, they proceeded to win the world series.

I'm guessing the 2004 team was really good though. I just remember Pedro and Ortiz though

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...