Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SpecialFNK

2018 MLB Trade Rumors and Deadline Thread

Recommended Posts

A bit surprising no one wanted Billy Hamilton as the ultimate game breaker off the bench for their playoff run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, vthunder said:

With Shaw, Mous and Schoop, to play 2B/3B who is the odd man out?  

Supposed they could play Schoop, Shaw or Moustakas at SS? Mainly thinking Schoop. Could have a lineup that looks something like:

1. Cain - CF (OF)
2. Yelich - RF (OF)
3. Aguilar - 1B
4. Moustakas - 3B (SS?)
5. Shaw - 2B (3B, SS?)
6. Schoop - SS (2B)
7. Thames - LF (1B, OF)
8. Pina/Kratz - C
9. Pitcher

Others: Arcia (SS), Braun (1B, OF), Perez (INF), Saladino (INF)

Then they could easily rotate Arcia and Braun into the lineup and just play whoever's hot / give guys breaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Idoolittle said:

Supposed they could play Schoop, Shaw or Moustakas at SS? Mainly thinking Schoop. Could have a lineup that looks something like:

1. Cain - CF (OF)
2. Yelich - RF (OF)
3. Aguilar - 1B
4. Moustakas - 3B (SS?)
5. Shaw - 2B (3B, SS?)
6. Schoop - SS (2B)
7. Thames - LF (1B, OF)
8. Pina/Kratz - C
9. Pitcher

Others: Arcia (SS), Braun (1B, OF), Perez (INF), Saladino (INF)

Then they could easily rotate Arcia and Braun into the lineup and just play whoever's hot / give guys breaks.

 

I agree, IMO they will have to try Schoop at SS the most if they want to keep Mous and Shaw in the lineup.   They will also likely give Schoop, Mous and Shaw rest more often so they can get Arcia and Braun into the lineup as much as possible as well.

 

Definitely a good move for Schoop leaving BAL for MIL but its likely a little more lateral of a move then some people think since it ultimately could hurt his playing time and he will have to play out of position more often then not.  All just my opinion of course.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zig Zag said:

 

I agree, IMO they will have to try Schoop at SS the most if they want to keep Mous and Shaw in the lineup.   They will also likely give Schoop, Mous and Shaw rest more often so they can get Arcia and Braun into the lineup as much as possible as well.

 

Definitely a good move for Schoop leaving BAL for MIL but its likely a little more lateral of a move then some people think since it ultimately could hurt his playing time and he will have to play out of position more often then not.  All just my opinion of course.

 

 

He will gain position eligibility if he plays enough SS, which is nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, The Gridiron Assassin said:

Brewers didn't add a starter, that wasn't all that smart, it's not a softball game in the tournament. 

The year after MadBum did that crazy thing in the postseason, Fangraphs published an article outlining how trading for an ace or top end starter for the playoffs doesn't really matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MireLurker said:

A bit surprising no one wanted Billy Hamilton as the ultimate game breaker off the bench for their playoff run.

When the Jays had Pompey up for one of their runs he went in as a pinch runner and stole two or three bags. I'm just as surprised as you are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Idoolittle said:

Supposed they could play Schoop, Shaw or Moustakas at SS? Mainly thinking Schoop. Could have a lineup that looks something like:

1. Cain - CF (OF)
2. Yelich - RF (OF)
3. Aguilar - 1B
4. Moustakas - 3B (SS?)
5. Shaw - 2B (3B, SS?)
6. Schoop - SS (2B)
7. Thames - LF (1B, OF)
8. Pina/Kratz - C
9. Pitcher

Others: Arcia (SS), Braun (1B, OF), Perez (INF), Saladino (INF)

Then they could easily rotate Arcia and Braun into the lineup and just play whoever's hot / give guys breaks.

 

Shaw had been getting platooned with Perez at 2b recently.  I'm guessing that continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, cdd10 said:

is there still a chance rodney could be moved?

 

Probably. He should clear waivers pretty easily. He just needs to pitch better so the Twins can actually get something of value for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SpartyOn4 said:

 

Probably. He should clear waivers pretty easily. He just needs to pitch better so the Twins can actually get something of value for him.

Why would you assume Rodney would clear waivers?  Not a chance of that imo.  He makes 4.25 M on a one year deal.  Given teams need for relievers, someone will put in a claim to add him for the pro-rated amount left on his contract for the remaining 1-2 months.  Fairly cheap and it costs them nothing in the way of prospects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, secretagentman said:

Why would you assume Rodney would clear waivers?  Not a chance of that imo.  He makes 4.25 M on a one year deal.  Given teams need for relievers, someone will put in a claim to add him for the pro-rated amount left on his contract for the remaining 1-2 months.  Fairly cheap and it costs them nothing in the way of prospects.

 

I agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, secretagentman said:

Why would you assume Rodney would clear waivers?  Not a chance of that imo.  He makes 4.25 M on a one year deal.  Given teams need for relievers, someone will put in a claim to add him for the pro-rated amount left on his contract for the remaining 1-2 months.  Fairly cheap and it costs them nothing in the way of prospects.

 

Yeah. He’s not getting past Cleveland on the WW. It’s jusr a matter of if a deal can be worked out for him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wouldn't be free in terms of prospects I dont think. Doesn't the team who placed the player on waivers have the option to either negotiate a trade, pull the player back, or give him away outright?

 

Knowing the other team wanted Rodney, surely they would try to extract at least some low level prospect, or bonus money, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cs3 said:

He wouldn't be free in terms of prospects I dont think. Doesn't the team who placed the player on waivers have the option to either negotiate a trade, pull the player back, or give him away outright?

 

Knowing the other team wanted Rodney, surely they would try to extract at least some low level prospect, or bonus money, etc

Not sure if the waivers are revocable or not.  Even if they were, you get almost nothing in that situation imo because if you pull the player back you can not trade him at that point\you have to keep him more or less.  So the team claiming him has all the leverage if the current team really wants to do a deal.

 

Actually, here are the rules on such:

 

https://www.mlb.com/news/guide-to-baseballs-waiver-trade-system/c-140073380

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, BlueJaysIn2030 said:

The year after MadBum did that crazy thing in the postseason, Fangraphs published an article outlining how trading for an ace or top end starter for the playoffs doesn't really matter. 

Houston doesn't win without Verlander last season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Baseball Jonze said:

Houston doesn't win without Verlander last season. 

Houston does not win without Verlander suddenly finding it again after being traded there.  I still like to know what magic potion they have to turn a guy who had been a has been for a number of years prior back into a ace (yeah I read all the stuff on spin rates and the like).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

 

About Schoop above.  Well he is better than Shaw there then and Arcia is iffy and the Brewers finally freed themselves of Viliar at last.   So I say ding, ding, we have a winner.  Arcia can be the defensive guy and let Schoop start maybe.

Acria was demoted to AAA at the end the of June. He hit .341 in AAA earned his way back up only 5 days ago. So far he is 4-23. They clearly want more offense out of SS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, secretagentman said:

Houston does not win without Verlander suddenly finding it again after being traded there.  I still like to know what magic potion they have to turn a guy who had been a has been for a number of years prior back into a ace (yeah I read all the stuff on spin rates and the like).

Maybe all he needed was the Yankees saying, “Nah, we’ll go Sonny Gray instead.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Baseball Jonze said:

Houston doesn't win without Verlander last season. 

You can't know that because he pitched for them.

Here's the article:

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/whats-happened-to-teams-that-traded-for-aces/

 

"Data:

ace-trade

Through this method, I found 22 trades that were made by 21 teams. If that’s a little confusing, it’s because last year’s Oakland Athletics added front-line starters in two separate deals — adding Jeff Samardzija and then Jon Lester. I don’t want to bias by double-counting. Of the 21 teams that added good starters, 17 advanced beyond the end of the regular season. Two were eliminated in single-game eliminations. Nine were eliminated in the division series. Four were eliminated in the championship series. Two lost the World Series. Which means that none of the teams actually won the World Series.

 

... When championship teams have added starters, they’ve been of the second- and third-tier varieties. The teams adding the big guys have made some noise, but of late they haven’t hoisted a trophy.

 

The point isn’t that it’s senseless to add a good starter. That would be a stupid point. Good players are good and good players help. The point also isn’t that you can’t win a World Series if you trade for a good starter. That would be an even stupider point. Additions shift the probabilities. It’s all about the probabilities. And, hey, Curt Schilling won the World Series with Arizona, the year after getting traded there midseason. There’s no reason why a good pitcher wouldn’t be awesome to have, and there’s no reason why the good pitchers available today couldn’t help teams in the market for arms."

 

 

 

So basically it boils down to:

The Brewers don't need an ace or a top-end starter to contend - the data proves it. Does that mean that they wouldn't have benefited from a Chris Archer? They obviously would have. But right now the team is 15th in SP WAR and 3rd in RP WAR. On the hitting side of things, this team is basically average. Maybe they enter the playoffs with someone like Anderson or Guerra hot. Maybe they don't. 

So why go out and make some huge splash for an ace when the data says it doesn't work? This team is not a WS favorite, but in a 7 game series anyone can win.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BlueJaysIn2030 said:

You can't know that because he pitched for them.

Here's the article:

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/whats-happened-to-teams-that-traded-for-aces/

 

"Data:

ace-trade

Through this method, I found 22 trades that were made by 21 teams. If that’s a little confusing, it’s because last year’s Oakland Athletics added front-line starters in two separate deals — adding Jeff Samardzija and then Jon Lester. I don’t want to bias by double-counting. Of the 21 teams that added good starters, 17 advanced beyond the end of the regular season. Two were eliminated in single-game eliminations. Nine were eliminated in the division series. Four were eliminated in the championship series. Two lost the World Series. Which means that none of the teams actually won the World Series.

 

... When championship teams have added starters, they’ve been of the second- and third-tier varieties. The teams adding the big guys have made some noise, but of late they haven’t hoisted a trophy.

 

The point isn’t that it’s senseless to add a good starter. That would be a stupid point. Good players are good and good players help. The point also isn’t that you can’t win a World Series if you trade for a good starter. That would be an even stupider point. Additions shift the probabilities. It’s all about the probabilities. And, hey, Curt Schilling won the World Series with Arizona, the year after getting traded there midseason. There’s no reason why a good pitcher wouldn’t be awesome to have, and there’s no reason why the good pitchers available today couldn’t help teams in the market for arms."

 

 

 

So basically it boils down to:

The Brewers don't need an ace or a top-end starter to contend - the data proves it. Does that mean that they wouldn't have benefited from a Chris Archer? They obviously would have. But right now the team is 15th in SP WAR and 3rd in RP WAR. On the hitting side of things, this team is basically average. Maybe they enter the playoffs with someone like Anderson or Guerra hot. Maybe they don't. 

So why go out and make some huge splash for an ace when the data says it doesn't work? This team is not a WS favorite, but in a 7 game series anyone can win.

 

 

 

The Brewers will likely be in the game of death. 

 

So who starts the one game playoff? 

 

To make it into a 7 game series, they'd have to make it through the Cubs with their rotation the way it is. 

 

Starting pitching def matters in the tournament. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Gridiron Assassin said:

 

 

The Brewers will likely be in the game of death. 

 

So who starts the one game playoff? 

 

To make it into a 7 game series, they'd have to make it through the Cubs with their rotation the way it is. 

 

Starting pitching def matters in the tournament. 

I didn't say it doesn't. Did you read my post and the article? The playoffs aren't just about pitching. The name of the game is to OUTSCORE your opponent. You can head in there and have a starter allow 4er if you score 5. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point that I took away is that the teams that won the World Series already had one or more top level starters, and the teams that traded for the "ace" had comparatively lousy starting pitching and weren't likely to win it all anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, cs3 said:

The point that I took away is that the teams that won the World Series already had one or more top level starters, and the teams that traded for the "ace" had comparatively lousy starting pitching and weren't likely to win it all anyway. 

Yeah which was my point. Someone called the Brewers FO stupid for not getting Archer or someone deemed an ace. I'm saying that even if they did it wouldn't have mattered for the reasons listed in the article. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlueJaysIn2030 said:

You can't know that because he pitched for them.

Here's the article:

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/whats-happened-to-teams-that-traded-for-aces/

 

"Data:

ace-trade

Through this method, I found 22 trades that were made by 21 teams. If that’s a little confusing, it’s because last year’s Oakland Athletics added front-line starters in two separate deals — adding Jeff Samardzija and then Jon Lester. I don’t want to bias by double-counting. Of the 21 teams that added good starters, 17 advanced beyond the end of the regular season. Two were eliminated in single-game eliminations. Nine were eliminated in the division series. Four were eliminated in the championship series. Two lost the World Series. Which means that none of the teams actually won the World Series.

 

... When championship teams have added starters, they’ve been of the second- and third-tier varieties. The teams adding the big guys have made some noise, but of late they haven’t hoisted a trophy.

 

The point isn’t that it’s senseless to add a good starter. That would be a stupid point. Good players are good and good players help. The point also isn’t that you can’t win a World Series if you trade for a good starter. That would be an even stupider point. Additions shift the probabilities. It’s all about the probabilities. And, hey, Curt Schilling won the World Series with Arizona, the year after getting traded there midseason. There’s no reason why a good pitcher wouldn’t be awesome to have, and there’s no reason why the good pitchers available today couldn’t help teams in the market for arms."

 

 

 

So basically it boils down to:

The Brewers don't need an ace or a top-end starter to contend - the data proves it. Does that mean that they wouldn't have benefited from a Chris Archer? They obviously would have. But right now the team is 15th in SP WAR and 3rd in RP WAR. On the hitting side of things, this team is basically average. Maybe they enter the playoffs with someone like Anderson or Guerra hot. Maybe they don't. 

So why go out and make some huge splash for an ace when the data says it doesn't work? This team is not a WS favorite, but in a 7 game series anyone can win.

 


I do agree with the overall point you're try to make. Every team in the league could use elite starting pitching. But it's not that easy to acquire. Most teams aren't making these guys available, and if they are they want a lot in return. So based on the situation that Milwaukee's in, where they can compete but are a notch below the other teams top teams contending, it wouldn't make much sense to trade the farm away for an elite starting pitcher. The adds they made make their team better without hurting the farm team too much, so if their rotation gets hot who knows what will happen.

However, I will say that the numbers would probably suggest that you need an ace if you want to win the World Series. The numbers you are looking at are for teams that traded for an ace during the year. However, most World Series winning teams already had an ace on their roster. If you look at the winners from the last two decades it would be hard to find a team that did have at least one ace on their roster. Looking through some of the teams Kansas City comes to mind... who by the way did trade for an ace when they won in 2015 by getting Johnny Cueto. But Cueto didn't perform like an ace when he was with the Royals, so I'll say they didn't have one. But they were however able to make up for it because they had the best bullpen in the big leagues... which I do think it relevant. So they did have elite pitchers, just not at SP. I would also note that since the end of your data above in 2014, in 2015 Kansas traded for Cueto as mentioned, 2016 the Cubs traded for Chapman (bullpen ace, but still relevant), and 2017 Houston traded for Verlander. So teams have made the move for an elite pitcher and won. 

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the numbers would probably suggest you need elite pitching to win. But that doesn't necessary mean a team should go all out to get one for one season (or take a shot on someone like Archer, who has ace potential but hasn't played like an ace). Try to be good for as long as you can, and once you get close then maybe make the move. But now isn't the time for Milwaukee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Idoolittle said:




Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the numbers would probably suggest you need elite pitching to win. But that doesn't necessary mean a team should go all out to get one for one season (or take a shot on someone like Archer, who has ace potential but hasn't played like an ace). Try to be good for as long as you can, and once you get close then maybe make the move. But now isn't the time for Milwaukee.

This is all I'm saying. And keep in mind it was in response to someone calling the Brewers stupid for not getting one. It just isn't their time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BlueJaysIn2030 said:

Yeah which was my point. Someone called the Brewers FO stupid for not getting Archer or someone deemed an ace. I'm saying that even if they did it wouldn't have mattered for the reasons listed in the article. 


I agree with this overall. Let's say Milwaukee has a 6% of winning the World Series this year. Trading for Archer improves that a little bit... and let's even be optimistic and say it goes to 8%. That would still mean there's a 92%+ chance they would lose. So odds the trade likely isn't going to make a difference. Even the best teams in the league like Houston, New York, Boston, LAD, etc. have probably less than a 20% chance of winning. So even if you do everything right, odds are you're still going to lose. The goal of a team is to try to put themselves in the best situations to win. Which can mean either greatly improving the odds in a single year by sacrificing later years... or maintaining good odds over a long period of time. There's a variety of ways to do it.

I don't think Milwaukee was stupid for not trading for Archer. Maybe the price just wasn't right or maybe Tampa just liked Pittsburgh's offer better. That's just the nature of the business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites