Scalious
-
Posts
132 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Scalious
-
-
Bigger name then talent. He's been a bleh sinker/slider guy most of his time in the majors (62 IP). Guessing the plan will be to have him to focus on his 4-seamer and try a go improving on a secondary offering
Edit: Didn't see Luke's post's above mine, so...what he said
-
1
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, Frobby said:
I couldn’t disagree more with this statement. First, the chances are very good that someone who debuts in 2021 will still be on the team and a significant contributor in 2027. Whether he is one of the 3-4 best players on the team is beside the point. You’d rather have him under control than not.
Have someone who is as good or better, and cheaper, coming up through your system? Fine, then trade Diaz before 2027. But you’re going to get more for him in a trade if he’s under control for a year longer. Don’t you think Mancini would be worth more in a trade right now if he was under control for 4 years instead of 3? Or that Bundy would have been worth more if he’d been under control for 3 years instead of 2?
Finally, I think you overrate the ability of even a top farm system to generate new players of starter quality. Even a really good system only generates 1-2 such players a year. So having the ability to keep those guys for an extra year is important unless there’s a compelling reason not to, which there isn’t when the team is non-competitive.
Trading away good players with 2 years of control seems to be the sweet spot. Rentals don't get a ton and what you can get for 3 or 4 might not be properly compensated.
Trading away right before arb 1 or at arb 1 would be the sweet spot for mid-level types. Just from observation over the years.
-
6 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:
I think that once you get past the income for ownership every dollar spent on free agents is a dollar not spent somewhere else.
There is a cost to playing politics(they are apart of greater system that is feeding them income).
Of course the money is going to be invested somewhere. The question is if is useful towards winning down the road, or not. Right now, probably with how far behind the times Elias has to catch up on.
-
17 minutes ago, Philip said:
I cannot comment on most of what you said, except that it seems logical to me. We need a conveyor belt. It doesn’t matter what we have on the 40 man, as long as every person on the 40 man, whether an old veteran or a new rookie, has someone behind him to replace him. If our SS is coming up on his arbitration years, for instance, we need a near-ready replacement so we can trade the arbitration guy if we choose
That’s what Mike is trying to do, establish a path long and wide. I’m not worried about getting worthwhile assets, I think it’s going to happen. I’m worried about holding them too long, I’m worried about having a surplus and doing nothing about it, or having a shortage and dealing with it poorly.
My opinion is simply you don't want to get too carried away with trying to trade away players in their prime. Then it becomes of game of only getting 3/4 years of production, instead of 6. That player might put out the most WAR in year 5/6..and that next batch of prospects odds of being as valuable? Debatable since value is not linear.
You also need to know when to stack your odds in the short term. Because of how difficult it is to win a game with 29 other participants.
Since FA usually has decent viabe 1B/DH/LF fits every year. Progressive Organizations do at times flip their own 1B/DH Corner OF types for the next batch of prospects before FA. Even when trying to win. A quality SS? Not so much for non re-builders..
Or if the corner IF/OF is a really special bat. Braves never traded away Freddie Freeman despite doing a whole re-build. Can you say that was the unwise choice? To keep Freeman, making over 20M per?
-
Matt Moore and Justin Bour are following Jones over the ocean.
-
8 hours ago, Going Underground said:
Sorry it was $118 million for local shared revenue. It is for all local revenue not just local TV revenue.
n Major League Baseball, 48% of local revenues are subject to revenue sharing and are distributed equally among all 30 teams, with each team receiving 3.3% of the total sum generated. As a result, in 2018, each team received $118 million from this pot. Teams also receive a share of national revenues, which were estimated to be $91 million per team, also in 2018.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Revenue_sharing
n Major League Baseball, 48% of local revenues are subject to revenue sharing and are distributed equally among all 30 teams, with each team receiving 3.3% of the total sum generated. As a result, in 2018, each team received $118 million from this pot. Teams alsoreceive a share of national revenues, which were estimated to be $91 million per team, also in 2018.
Think it does, because that article shows the Marlins only generating 72M in local revenue, but their overall revenue is 224M. While the Yankees local revenue(717) is higher then its actual revenue(668).
-
1 hour ago, atomic said:
It doesn't exist for labor. Did you not read my post.
Anti trust lawsuits have not happend much since the 80's.
Thanks for the info. Was engaged in the 1 v 1 convo.
-
1 hour ago, Satyr3206 said:
Sorry I wasn't clear. Get rid of that too.
Well congress expressed their displeasure about trimming minor league teams. If MLB keeps making moves that cuts jobs and milks voting taxpayers on stadium deals, congresses opinion on that could change.
Especially if MLB teams experience attendance decline and the local businesses no longer profit. On the other hand. 10.7 B revenue gives you room to make in rain in the lobby halls of DC.
-
4 minutes ago, Satyr3206 said:
I have heard and read at length about those things. This isn't 1920. There are many other checks and balances now.
Saying the players absolutely need a Union is ridiculous. In this day and age?
Yes, because the anti-trust exemption still exist. You are confusing a competitive job markets lack of need for a union for a specialized field that one corporation dominates the vast majority of market.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:
Max out international spending. Max out draft spending. Infrastructure. Scouts. Analytics tools and personnel. Or put most of it in a low-risk investment, ready to be spent in 2023 when they're in the part of the competitive window where it might matter. What are they going to be likely to get for a few months of a 2-win second baseman? Hint: Some team's #22 prospect, for about $3M. Schoop is coming off two years worse than Jonathan Villar, and the O's got almost nothing for him.
Spending for a few wins coming off a 47-win season is essentially setting the money on fire so their version of @atomic won't complain so much.
There are hard caps for IFA spending. I don't think these deals have anything to do with how much they are willing to spend on IFAs. You can't go ham like the Padres and Yankees did years ago.
That and the IFA market is a pre-determined market. They are making these deals with kids years well before they turn 16. That is why its going to take a few years until the Orioles start to bring in big IFA names.
As for infrastructure. I'd agree, but avlia is an established GM. He's probably already made the major changes he wanted to. Also back to the point that these teams are likely given yearly budgets. So its spend it now, not later. At the end of the day we are both making a lot of assumptions. We dont know what the books look like.
-
1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:
Why would anyone draft a HS player if they know they won't have control over them past three years in the minors? You'd have to be a fool.
Also no NPB team would ever dream of signing someone that already has a contract with a ML team.
As for the minor leaguers forming a union? Who is going to pay their bills while they strike? I think the ML owners would be more than happy to shut down minor league baseball for a year or two.
Change service time from 26 man to 40 man. Rule 5 already has an age discrimination baked it. Change from abritation system to an RFA system. Let the market decide value over some committee. Restrictions rules can be molded to mirror aspects to escalating levels that each arb currently has. Min and max salaries, or whatever.
You wouldn't be pawning off Villar for some 14th round scrub. You would let another teams interest decide his salary and choose to keep or maybe get draft pick comp choice. There would be no point in holding back Mouncastle as he's on the 40 man.
Just spitballing ideas here. I'm sure there are obvious flaws to the model
-
3 hours ago, LookinUp said:
Magic of goat farming aside, I think this concept isn't a different way to the same goal, it's an additional path to a larger goal.
If every team has a direct path to 10 prospects, Detroit theoretically just created a path to another 2-3 prospects that wouldn't otherwise be there. This could be considered a wise move if 1) they're taking advantage of all of the other paths and 2) anything lost w/r/t having a better team (e.g., draft slots, team cash) is outweighed by whatever they gain through future prospect trades.
My problem isn't that Detroit did this, it's that they did it for Schoop (low OBP, low BA guy) and Cron (1B). The market for these two isn't going to be massive, so I really doubt they get good prospects back and this works out from a pure FV standpoint.
I essentially think they just blew a few million on a few more wins to shut the fans up.
What would be a better path of spending 10M?
3 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:What's your definition of competent? The Jays are spending money to finish in 4th place.
All of their major hitting prosects are in the majors. I agree the Jays are still not there, but you also cannot waste the advantage you are given when you have a several pre-arb talented players. Vlad/Bichette/Biggio/Gurriel are only going to become more expensive if you wait. They are in an ackward spot.
-
MLBPA is only players on the 40 man. So only the interests of players who make the majors have a say at the table. The biggest backers are the vets who have the $$$.
Both sides can probably see the over-paid contracts by FA are a result of underpaying younger players. The MLBPA never cared when they were getting these big contacts. Now that GMs have wised up the fact FA is a poor investment. The MLBPA cares because they are losing their share of revenue with the flawed system.
-
1
-
-
On 12/21/2019 at 11:54 PM, Luke-OH said:
It depends, if he threw 95 and struck out 10 per 9 and walked 2 per 9, then you’d feel much better about him repeating the performance.
But he outperformed his FIP, xFIP, and xwOBA, he’s got 91mph fastball with hop and a plus changeup, but not much else. His 2019 season looks better by descriptive stats than by predictive stats.
FIP IMO underrated change up heavy from time to time. Or more specifically. MLB hitters can read spin difference between breakers and fastball(well, sort of). Of course how effective this also a lot to do with repeating your release point etc etc. The whole point of a change up is to mimic a FB. There is a strong correlation with plus change and lower BABIPs. Not .256 good, but well under 300.
Lots of hard throwers can try to the same with a FB/SL approach. The Jack Flaherty's of the world who can do it masterfully seem more rare though. That just a very armature opinion though. You probably would know better
I'm more optimistic about Means for that though. Most change up experts don't have a Fly ball tendency. They work down in the zone and get grounders. xFIP also has a bias against Fly ball pitchers. As they tend to have lower then average HR/FB rates and BABIPs.
He will probably have some regression. Just not nearly as much as you might think.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:
Have they spent their allotment? Perhaps I'm thinking too logically, downplaying all the impediments baseball puts in the way of teams who would like to just go spend some money to fix their team.
I'm going to start using Goat Farming as a reference to baseball's bizarre choices in bureaucratic roadblocks.
There are fixed caps for spending. The only remaining paths are into player dev infrastructure or the MLB roster. Or investing the money in ways that have nothing to do with getting talent. Wouldn't surprise me if ownership groups set their GMs a budget.
Money not invested is money wasted. Most salary dump for prospect trades end up being more then 6M. So, might as well get a useful MLB player and see if you can leverage something later.
-
36 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:
I like how you emphasized the Royals there, like they're somehow worse than us.
Fobres has the Orioles at 1.3B vs the Royals 1.0B. Coastal US and metro size matter. Mets are 6th in MLB on this metric. I wouldn't say they are the 6th most competent franchise. It's just the luxury of location.
-
2
-
-
In an uncontrolled entertainment industry. You can get away with paying people just about nothing and only half to pay for big names. Like Hollywood, but actors have the freedom of choice and can make deals with anyone they want for any lenght of time.
Freedom of player choice from entry doesn't work in sports. You can't build teams if they can decide when to go elsewhere anytime. So they sacrifice choice for stable $$$ for their marginal workers.
-
3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:
Perhaps he's taking a stand on the concept of professional sports. Or free agency. We gave free agency a good, long trial. Maybe it's time to go back to owners decreeing players can only make a salary of $16,000 a year.
That doesn't work in an controlled entertainment industry. They are not just employees, they are also the consumable product. They have duel value.
No one would play baseball is MLBers only made 16 grand. You would ruin your product and brand. Tanking your company. Not just your capable workforce.
-
5 hours ago, Frobby said:
The Eloy Jimenez contact I summarized above might be a model. He was the no. 3 prospect when he signed it. Of course, he “only” had a $2.8 mm signing bonus banked, compared to the $8.1 mm Rutschman has stashed away, so perhaps Jimenez would have been a little more motivated to sign a long term deal than Rutschman would be.
I remember someone proposed signing Wieters to a 10/$100 mm deal right out of the gate. To date, Wieters has earned just shy of $60 mm in 11 years.
3rd world prospects are way more likely to agree to these deals id bet. Unless they have a Boras agent. Regardless what the initial bonus was. Though, yes. Big bonus help. So does having a 1st world education that maybe gives you at least some idea of fiscal responsibility and living a comfortable childhood. Agents are their teacher/pseudo guardian
-
Kingrey and Lowe both have MI Gloves. There was not as much pressure on the bat for those 2 for them to be worth the risk of an unproven player. While Eloy's investment was purely about his extremely high hitting ceiling.
Mountcastle value puts it all the unproven bat and I don't think his hitting ceiling is elite enough IMO. Hays being able to play CF helps here. So i'd peruse a Hays deal before considering Mountcastle.
-
3
-
-
Travis Shaw?
in MLB
Franco would have higher upside. So in a "nothing to lose" aspect. I'd like it.
Travis Shaw would just have much better odds of turning out respectable. You are taking Franco in the hopes of making a swing change that can improve his quality on contact. Where you are simply just hoping Travis Shaw will bounce back on his own with only slight adjustments.
-
48 minutes ago, LookinUp said:
What you're describing is bad analytics, understanding that bad really just means incomplete.
People think big data is the end all, be all. It might be in baseball, but just because data exists doesn't mean it's the right data. This stuff isn't easy. It will take time to get closer to perfect. See defensive metrics, for example.
The numbers of perspectives you can infer upon a data set is unimaginable.
Anything you put an emphasis on, you are going load up on the most flawed of it. Since all good ones cost more. I don't think high spin is any longer a market in-efficiency. So you get exact what you pay for.
-
3 hours ago, wildcard said:
So are you saying that Sig and Elias are behind on analytics?
Only that it's likely gotten to a point that its an over focus on a very specific trait of a pitcher. A quality pitcher is the sum of a lot of parts.
Example: Brewers re-build had a very saber metric focus on targeting pitchers. They targeted guys with very FIP friendly numbers, also looked for guys with a-typical deliveries that could lead to deception.
The biggest fruit they bared from this was trading for Josh Hader. However, the draw back of this focus was they ignored repertoire depth. So they ended up with a lot of guys who could only throw 1 quality pitch that were the reason for all their K's. Hardly any of them could throw a quality change up.
So they haven't really produced any quality SP from this outside of Woodruff. They ignored key starter traits by tunnel visioning high K% and deception.
I think Elias's phislopshy is much more complex and wont have those same pitfalls. IMO
-
What can they reasonably do? They don't have a lot of trade chips. Guys like Givens and Mancini are nice, but in the pool from 30 teams. They don't really stand out.
They are still plowing the field, fertilizing and seeding it. There is not much that can be harvested.
Would you offer Hays or Mountcastle a long term deal now?
in Orioles Talk
Posted
As in the total sum pool of MLB players to ever make a debut? Of course
The sum total that actually accrued at least 6 years of service time? Was looking at cots at the all the guys with 6+. Seems is looks more 50/50. With RP having the slant towards poorer odds.
Little survivor bias. Players who are good enough to still have MLB jobs after 6 years tend have their teams ensure they don't go anywhere until FA. Most of the bouncing around is from guys who were never good enough to last 6 season on an MLB roster.
Plenty examples of the other way, late bloomers, trading when arbs get to expensive etc etc...but that is why i suspect it's closer to 50/50 for non RP.