Otto von Ballpark

Dang! Missed it... was busy re-enacting the Ramos-Capps debates of 2010... In fairness, I was just catching up at Fangraphs, saw this article, and thought of this thread. Great minds think alike! Some just a bit slower...

Escobar would have to sign a $50+ mil FA deal to get a comp pick in the 30-40 range. Otherwise it would be in 70-80 range, like the pick we sold to San Diego. But of course, the far more likely outcome of a QO is you would get him on a 1/18 contract and no comp pick.

JT Chargois is back in the majors this month for the Dodgers, and has retired 10 of 11 batters with 6 Ks. The one exception was a solo HR to Ohtani. Nick Burdi started his rehab for Pirates high-A affiliate, and has faced 7 batters so far -- 6 strikeout and a solo HR. Dereck Rodriguez and Anibal Sanchez both got the first starts for their teams out of the all star break, and both won again. (Interesting to remember how excited we all were to get Mejia from the Giants in the Nunez trade -- and now it appears they found an even better pitcher from our organization for free...)

From Fangraphs: How Well Do Good Relievers Hold Up? https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-well-do-good-relievers-hold-up/ "Relievers do look the least reliable in the table, but just not by very much. Relievers get worse, but so do starters and hitters."

All games on MLB.TV are free this weekend, if you want to check it out! Blackout restrictions still apply, however.

Actually, a player who doesn't plan to re-sign with you would make more sense for a QO -- it's a free draft pick. For the player you plan to retain anyway (Escobar), a QO makes it possible/likely you will be stuck paying him $18 mil for just 1 year, when you could perhaps get him for something like 2/20 or even 3/24 instead.

Hmmm... Littell is scheduled Sunday. It is Mejia's turn on Monday, but they are on a 6 man rotation schedule so Gonsalves (turn on Tuesday) could actually go on Monday with 4 days rest. Not sure they would want to do that for his debut, though. Is it confirmed that Berrios isn't going until Tuesday? Otherwise maybe they could do Berrios on Monday and Ervin on short rest Tuesday (although maybe coming off 66 pitches is too much). I guess my prediction would be Mejia, and they might drop him for Ervin afterward, barring a trade or injury. They could insert Ervin as soon as Wednesday if they wanted.

Very slowly, like by 1 K per month. And even that has reversed for July so far. April 29.7% May 28.7% June 28.0% July 32.4%

I don't think so. Drafted in 2013, this offseason will be Stewart's 6th contract renewal. After 2019 he would be eligible for minor league FA. Stewart will be Rule 5 eligible again this winter, of course. Jay will be a first time Rule 5 eligible.

1) We had zero depth at catcher beyond Ramos. Next up was Drew Butera. You can't do that at the position of catcher, where your backup needs to start ~20% of the time even when your starter is healthy. See what happened in 2011 as soon as Mauer went on the DL? We almost immediately had to start flinging guys like Steve Holm onto the roster, it was embarrassing, and it was a direct result of considering Ramos expendable. Plus we just committed a ton to Mauer and probably should have been looking to protect him a bit more behind the plate. Thome was a part-time player at DH and we just lost Morneau to injury that summer too, so we had some openings to re-configure his playing time. As for Ramos, he really didn't have a durability problem at the time. He was on the minor league DL one season, I think (2009). Next DL trip wasn't until 2012. He was playing winter ball too. 2) Capps was good in 2010, but we didn't need him to win the division. Our bullpen was fine. As expected, Capps was a complete non-factor in the postseason too. We really should have been in "go big or go home" mode -- either pay the big price for Cliff Lee, or stick to cheap augmentation like Brian Fuentes (who we basically acquired for free in August). Giving up part of the price for Lee, for a small augmentation in Capps, really made no sense. As for the extra year of control for Capps, we had to pay Capps over $7 mil for it. Guerrier and Crain both signed for 3/12 and 3/13 that offseason, respectively. We still had Nathan under contract for 2011 too (and indeed he tried to open the season at closer, although that didn't last long). Fuentes signed as a free agent for $5 mil, Jon Rauch for $3.75 mil, etc. Capps at over $7 mil was not good value. I don't mean to exaggerate -- Capps wasn't worthless, and it's not the worst deal of all time or anything -- but it was definitely not a smart move.

Probably just until Tuesday when we will need a 5th starter again. I see Ervin is pitching tonight in Rochester, so we'll probably have to pull him early tonight if we want him available to start Tuesday...

Well. that's the literal white flag. I don't think you do that in April ever, but yes, your chances go down considerably when you need those marginal wins and you lose them. With our front office and ownership and current roster, I feel like dealing Gibson now would be a bit of a figurative white flag for 2019, a signal we expect to rebuild a bit and contention will be seen as more of a hope/surprise than a goal. A bit more than the Garcia/Kintzler trades last year, definitely less than the Johan Santana deal but in the same pattern. Could we still sign Livan Hernandez to take his place? Part of this is also that I don't think Gibson would get any great value in trade right now. Obviously if he could attract a Mejia or even a Justus Sheffield, that would change the calculus, so we're probably in agreement on the actual issues, and just going back and forth on the phrasing/framing.

As long as they sign for less than $50 mil (a virtual certainty for Escobar, and a likely possibility for Dozier), the comp pick is going to be roughly equivalent to the 70-something pick we traded with Hughes. We got $7 mil for it, but many observers thought it was a bit of an overpay by San Diego, and of course it was one of only a couple picks that could actually be traded/sold which boosted its value. The expected player value of that pick may only be $4 mil? And we paid $4 mil for Littell last deadline. I don't think that is a high bar to clear.

Quoting myself, thinking again -- maybe that QO potential for Gibson is potential upside you could sell now, that you couldn't sell next summer. (Still not sure if anyone's ready to buy now, of course.)

What's "no real chance anyways"? Weak division, Cleveland has some challenges too. We obviously won't be favorites but we'll have some kind of chance. But with that chance means marginal wins are going to be pretty important, so subtracting a durable 3 WAR SP would be a big deal, whether you want to call it a white flag or not. I guess we could try to replace him this winter but you're likely to be looking at a mix of older/worse/more expensive options. And given how important marginal wins are to us, if you're making a significant SP addition, maybe you want it in addition to Gibson rather than replacing him? Gibson's salary is negligible. Bump Odorizzi or Mejia or whomever instead.

Mark Trumbo! Of course, that was a bad decision and even worse contract... I think Escobar would at least be more useful in his utility role than Trumbo ever was. On the pitching side, Jeremy Hellickson. QO rules have changed since then, though, so the penalties aren't as great for signing a QO player, nor is the compensation as great for losing most players.

Just thinking -- IF Gibson keeps this up, he'd probably be worth a QO after 2019 which could possibly buy you his age 32 season without a long-term commitment.

To be fair, Gibson has been pitching for the last calendar year like a fairly durable 3 WAR starter. His likely internal replacements have little or no experience and could easily be replacement level or worse in 2019. That's a pretty big difference to overcome, so I could see it being a bit of a white flag.

What's not fair? If the context is fluctuation of reliever performance, Capps was definitely coming off an awful 2009 season prior to us acquiring him in July 2010. Hand was once a failed starter, true, but he has no such blemish on his reliever resume yet. Like I said, Hand has been extremely consistent since moving to the pen. Hand ERA FIP xFIP 2016: 2.92 3.07 3.34 2017: 2.16 3.03 2.90 2018: 3.05 3.17 2.88 Compared to Capps, the year before we acquired him: Capps ERA FIP xFIP 2009: 5.80 4.90 4.30 And the 3 years before that (2006-2008), Capps' xFIP was 3.89-4.15 each year, suggesting his periodic success was largely being driven by favorable fluctuations in his HR rate. Obviously there's no guarantee with Hand, but I think it's fair to project him as more consistent in the near future than Capps circa 2010. FWIW, B-Ref has Petco trending toward neutral park factor. In Hand's 3 seasons there, it's been 95-98-98 (after averaging 90-91 for the first 10 years of its existence). His divisional road parks also look no worse than collectively neutral (SF and LA vs. ARI and COL). League effects are probably going to be pretty minor for a modern relief pitcher -- Hand has only faced 1 pitcher at the plate in each of the last 2 seasons (same as Capps at the time of his trade).

How about opening up a spot for Sano to return? I guess they could DH him or plug him in at 1B, but I presume they'd want to see how he handles 3B in MLB with better conditioning.

For Dozier, it really depends on how he finishes. A strong finish at the plate will strongly suggest he's still the same plus player he's been for 5 years now, and worth a QO for a hopeful contender without an immediate replacement ready. Escobar doesn't have that history. Even if he somehow duplicates his first half success, there's probably not enough confidence in his 2019 projection to justify that deal.

I have since changed my mind and posted that I love the Pineda deal. All hail Pineda! But I do want to clarify, I listed those other guys in a "spots 5 to 8 on the depth chart" kind of way. If they're not capable of that by April 2019, then they probably have no business being on the 40-man roster. An aside: I could see Slegers dropped this winter. Possibly even Littell, if we need the spot.

Jaime Garcia fetched a top 20 prospect for us. (More like top 10, depending on the source.) Nunez wasn't quite a rental, but wasn't as good as Dozier or Escobar either, and he fetched a top 20 prospect for us too (again more like top 10 by some as well). We may not get to pick and choose among top 20 prospects (i.e. targeting a particularly guy or position), but I feel like we should be able to get someone in that range.

I think I am with you on Lynn. Would be nice to see Mejia again this year, and maybe even Gonsalves too. Mildly frustrated they went with Slegers the last few turns (and Romero as a short-notice sub for Slegers). But I'm not sure on Odorizzi yet. He's not doing that great but he's still in the 1-2 WAR per 30 starts range which is a nice fallback option at his salary, and he's only 28 still with some 3 WAR potential. I think you could do Berrios-Gibson-Odorizzi-Pineda next spring, and leave 1 spot for Mejia or Romero. Injuries happen too. We could always deal Odorizzi much like we acquired him, if we really wanted to clear a spot later. I might rather see Erv dealt in August, if we have fallen out of the race.

Then again, Pineda on this contract is probably more intriguing than most FA/trade options this winter. 3.4 fWAR per 30 starts for his career, although only 2.2 bWAR per 30 starts and that was trending down with the Yankees. Turns 30 in January, coming off surgery -- not perfect, but plenty of potential at $8 mil for 2019. So I'm cool with him again.