MLB thread

[Joltik-Kid]

Shields will leave for free agency. Butler will likely have his team option declined and do the same. Everyone else on the roster of any significance is either still under contract next season, has an option that's likely to be picked up or is otherwise still under team control.

Seems more like you're worried about nothing, to whatever extent one believes Kansas City will be back in the playoffs next season.

Aoki is also a free agent as well, as is Willingham

 

[BCVM22]

Aoki is also a free agent as well, as is Willingham

Everyone else on the roster of any significance

Willingham did nothing of any particular note in his 86 PAs as a Royal. What value Aoki has is eminently replaceable.

 

[Joltik-Kid]

Willingham did nothing of any particular note in his 86 PAs as a Royal. What value Aoki has is eminently replaceable.

That depends... Willingham had a key hit off the bench in the WC game that kept the Royals season alive and if not for Aoki in September, the Royals wouldn't have won as many games as they did.

 

[BCVM22]

That depends... Willingham had a key hit off the bench in the WC game that kept the Royals season alive and if not for Aoki in September, the Royals wouldn't have won as many games as they did.

No, it doesn't depend at all. That's the sort of thinking that has led countless front offices to retain players with minimal actual value. Is that really why you would have a team keep a completely replaceable guy like Willingham? Because he had a "key hit off the bench" once? And do explain, what quantifiable value did Aoki bring to the team - in September - without which "the Royals wouldn't have won as many games as they did"?

If you're going to debate for the retaining of certain players, "he had a key hit once" and "they would have won fewer games without him" are statements with no meaning unless supported.

 

[Poke Trainer J]

Shields will leave for free agency. Butler will likely have his team option declined and do the same. Everyone else on the roster of any significance is either still under contract next season, has an option that's likely to be picked up or is otherwise still under team control.

Seems more like you're worried about nothing, to whatever extent one believes Kansas City will be back in the playoffs next season.

I don't see Kansas City making it to the Playoffs again next season without Shields especially If they get rid of Cain and Perez. Given the circumstances I'm not sure If Kansas City would've made it to the World Series If they had played against St. Louis and Detroit instead of Oakland and Los Angeles in the Post-Season. If Bumgarner stays with San Francisco next season I probably wouldn't be surprised If they clench another World Series title even without Sandoval since there's rumors going around that he's getting traded to Boston.

 

[BCVM22]

I don't see Kansas City making it to the Playoffs again next season without Shields especially If they get rid of Cain and Perez. Given the circumstances I'm not sure If Kansas City would've made it to the World Series If they had played against St. Louis and Detroit instead of Oakland and Los Angeles in the Post-Season. If Bumgarner stays with San Francisco next season I probably wouldn't be surprised If they clench another World Series title even without Sandoval since there's rumors going around that he's getting traded to Boston.

I see the problem now.

I recommend reading this website--

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/

--top to bottom. Once you do, you'll know that:

• Salvador Perez is under contract until 2016, with extremely team-friendly team options for the three seasons that follow that. He's no great shakes but he sure isn't going anywhere.
• Lorenzo Cain is only arbitration-eligible for the first time - he will make more money than the roughly $546,000 he made in 2014, but not by that much. He's not going anywhere of his own volition, and if he does get traded, it is (in theory) because another team offered up a comedic overpayment in players for him and your front office is smart enough that they recognized the value of selling high on a player
• Madison Bumgarner is DEFINITELY not leaving San Francisco - he's under a ridiculously team-friendly contract until 2017 with equally team-friendly options the two seasons following that. There isn't the slightest "if" about where he'll play going forward.
• Pablo Sandoval is a free agent - he's not getting "traded" anywhere.

It'll be so much easier to read what you're saying once you arm yourself with the knowledge necessary to better understand where players will or will not be playing and why or why not that will be the case.

 

[Joltik-Kid]

Do the Yankee fans here think the Yankees will sign Scherzer?

 

[Vernikova]

I think we'll sign whoever we can afford. Or at least try to. It's too early to think about it now, though. Too early to think.

 

[Joltik-Kid]

I didn't see the Jays signing Martin... that's interesting

 

[Puma Italia]

Do the Yankee fans here think the Yankees will sign Scherzer?

I hope so. Give me him, and a shortstop and I'll be happy. I don't really want Troy Tulowitzki though. Especially if they have to give up a significant amount to trade for him (which they probably would). Someone who isn't as flashy, but I wouldn't mind getting for the right price is Elvis Andrus.

 

[Joltik-Kid]

Is Billy Beane out of his mind? He's destroying his core team...

 

[BCVM22]

He's doing what he feels he has to do to retool his team going forward. The cycle of a small market team with a good GM is to rebuild (sometimes seemingly unnecessarily) and compete over a four or five year span. Beane feels they may struggle to compete in the short-term - or even be somewhat competitive in the short-term but mediocre in the long-term - so he's getting younger, cheaper assets for more valuable ones right now, like Samardzija. Samardzija certainly isn't re-signing in Oakland when he's a free agent one year from now, so you have to - yes, have to - get something for him. You could wait until the deadline, but that's a long ways away. Samardzija could get hurt or struggle in the first half of the season, and then you have a lesser asset or no asset to trade at the deadline. The teams in need of a pitcher at the deadline might not match up in terms of a return to the A's, leaving you with an asset but nowhere to send it. You could wait until next offseason and extend him the qualifying offer you know he'll reject, but then certain teams lose their first-round draft pick if they sign him, making him (slightly) less attractive as a free agent, and depending on who he signs with, you may not get any compensation at all. You can replace "Jeff Samardzija" with "Brandon Moss" and most of that still holds true.

So, the moral of the story? No, it's not ideal, but Billy Beane is doing what he feels he has to in order to keep the roster replenished going forward. I'm sure he doesn't necessarily relish it, but no one gets into the top spot in a baseball front office because they think it's pure fun.

 

[Joltik-Kid]

He's doing what he feels he has to do to retool his team going forward. The cycle of a small market team with a good GM is to rebuild (sometimes seemingly unnecessarily) and compete over a four or five year span. Beane feels they may struggle to compete in the short-term - or even be somewhat competitive in the short-term but mediocre in the long-term - so he's getting younger, cheaper assets for more valuable ones right now, like Samardzija. Samardzija certainly isn't re-signing in Oakland when he's a free agent one year from now, so you have to - yes, have to - get something for him. You could wait until the deadline, but that's a long ways away. Samardzija could get hurt or struggle in the first half of the season, and then you have a lesser asset or no asset to trade at the deadline. The teams in need of a pitcher at the deadline might not match up in terms of a return to the A's, leaving you with an asset but nowhere to send it. You could wait until next offseason and extend him the qualifying offer you know he'll reject, but then certain teams lose their first-round draft pick if they sign him, making him (slightly) less attractive as a free agent, and depending on who he signs with, you may not get any compensation at all. You can replace "Jeff Samardzija" with "Brandon Moss" and most of that still holds true.

So, the moral of the story? No, it's not ideal, but Billy Beane is doing what he feels he has to in order to keep the roster replenished going forward. I'm sure he doesn't necessarily relish it, but no one gets into the top spot in a baseball front office because they think it's pure fun.

Pretty sure Donaldson got sold for cheap... Moss I thought could have gotten a slightly better return then a single prospect who Indian fans probably never even heard of. Samardzija made sense and he got a pretty decent return, but the other 2 were weird. What I guess I'm trying to say is the trades weren't odd, the returns were

 

[BCVM22]

Pretty sure Donaldson got sold for cheap...

The return for Donaldson was proportionate, or at worst, slightly less than. Not "cheap", at any rate.

Moss I thought could have gotten a slightly better return then a single prospect who Indian fans probably never even heard of

That's a poor metric by which to evaluate a given prospect, particularly as Joe Wendle was at least a rated prospect in the Cleveland organization.

What I guess I'm trying to say is the trades weren't odd, the returns were

Which is a different matter entirely, since you have to pick the best deal out of what's being offered. Not every trade can be a fleecing for one side.

 

[Joltik-Kid]

The return for Donaldson was proportionate, or at worst, slightly less than. Not "cheap", at any rate.

Cheap was the wrong word I agree. The return in terms of numbers was fine, but the players (assuming Lawrie was the "center piece") seem like a gamble. Then again the obvious answer there is trading for prospects is always a gamble.

That's a poor metric by which to evaluate a given prospect, particularly as Joe Wendle was at least a rated prospect in the Cleveland organization.

Okay I'll admit that was a poor reference... Moss seemed like a fire sale though to get rid of budget. Just thought an All Star slugger would net something more

Which is a different matter entirely, since you have to pick the best deal out of what's being offered. Not every trade can be a fleecing for one side.

Fair enough, Baseball has a history of such things. Guess we'll see what the 2015 season brings

 

[Golden_Latias]

Welp, Tigers traded Porcello to Boston for Cespedes and apparently got Simon from the Reds. Meh. Don't mind the Porcello-Cespedes trade, but I wish they got Cueto from the Reds.

Also, the Dodgers traded Kemp to the Padres.

 

[BCVM22]

but I wish they got Cueto from the Reds.

Well yes, but there's just a little bit of a difference between Johnny Cueto and Alfredo Simon. We all wish our favorite teams could acquire top-tier starting pitching for mid-level prospects. I'm sure you're aware of all that, but still.

 

[Joltik-Kid]

I'm in shambles, on the one hand it's Yoenis Cespedes, on the other hand Porcello was my favorite Tiger player... also the Tigers gave up too much for Simon considering the Marlins gave up relatively nothing for the better (albeit injury prone) and younger Mat Latos.

I have to admit the Dodgers doing nothing to suddenly doing everything was amazing and I have got to say the Marlins on paper improved greatly with the trades they made.

Royals getting Morales was odd and Twins stealing Santana from them was interesting

 

[Poke Trainer J]

According to Back to the Future II the Chicago Cubs win the 2015 World Series against the Miami Marlins except that matchup would be impossible seeing as how the Cubs and the Marlins are in the same league division. The Cubs recently added Jon Lester to their 2015 Season Roster while they also traded for catcher Miguel Montero who just so happens to have the same initials as Marty McFly with Cubs Head Manager Joe Maddon bearing a striking resemblance to Doc Brown, coincidence? Perhaps not.

 

[BCVM22]

coincidence? Perhaps not.

This was almost mildly amusing the first hundred or so times someone brought this up.

Several thousand times later? Not so much.

I think we can do better as discussion goes, don't you?