Dan's Offseason Moves Part One: Cruz

[weams]

More like 12%. Unless you think the 2018 payroll is going to be $70M.

I figured 80 because I believed that you were funding the difference with future cuts. Yes.

[weams]

I remember a lot of folks willing to give up a lot for Nick Franklin. Hind sight is so easy. Especially when you are just looking at the first four furlongs.

[Going Underground]

I figured 80 because I believed that you were funding the difference with future cuts. Yes.

Would MLB not step in if Angelos does not have the equity to field a competitive team? They could get him to sell to an owner that MLB sees as more favorable to settling the MASN dispute.

[weams]

Would MLB not step in if Angelos does not have the equity to field a competitive team? They could get him to sell to an owner that MLB sees as more favorable to settling the MASN dispute.

As long as the Astros and Marlins were able to field 40 million dollar payrolls recently, I'd say not. Especially not in a CBA bargaining year. That would be a precedent to get Manfred fired. And that is a 35 Million a year gig. Right?

[Stotle]

The contingencies were Snider and De Aza and Lough and Paredes and the like. All they really needed out of Pearce was reasonably good half-time play, and the others would spot in where their strengths and weaknesses dictated. That failed when almost all of them either got hurt or underperformed or both.

So that combination was supposed to replicated Pearce's 5.9 rWAR?

[Stotle]

Yes, those.

I'm sure you count me as an ardent supporter, and I have been quite vocal in my support for the team since he's taken over. I like winning baseball. But Duquette will be judged on how he addresses the obvious issues. If he lets the payroll fall to a level significantly below this year's I'll be very interested (and skeptical) in how that plan would work. If he trades what little is left on the farm for short-term stopgaps that'll be disconcerting. If signs a bunch of guys who come with draft pick compensation attached that'll be hard to get behind. But we'll see. He's done interesting and creative things in the past. There are opportunities to right some wrongs and fix some holes.

I do, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing. A lot of this stuff is in a black box with some public stuff sprinkled out for interpretation. There isn't anything inherently wrong with interpreting the info in a positive or negative light. This offseason seems like a pretty bright line, considering the state of the farm, the money available, the growth in a number of players in 2015, and some clear misses in 2015's team construction.

There is no built-in excuse as to payroll room and no denying that 2016 will be the direct result of Duquette's decisions. In short, the 2016 club is Duquette's team as he envisions it.

[DrungoHazewood]

So that combination was supposed to replicated Pearce's 5.9 rWAR?

No, of course not. But I think my reasonable mid-case for those guys was something like 6 wins between them, which isn't the same as one guy giving you six wins. You could at least count on a win or a win-and-a-half out of Snider and De Aza and probably Lough. I admittedly wasn't much of a Paredes fan (and by not much of a fan I mean this and this.)

I'm not sure how you go about replacing Pearce's 6 wins @ $500k and Cruz' 3.5 or 4 @ $8M without spending a lot or taking some risks that might not get you there again. With Pearce, at least internally, you have to admit that roster spot isn't going to be as productive and no additions will get you anywhere near $12M/win for his 2014 share of plate appearances.

[Frobby]

I think we just have a different opinion on why he was fired. IMO he was fired because of the M's overall bad season. He is partially responsible and partly a scapegoat imo. But I don't know how anyone can say the Cruz signing was bad or something that led to his firing. He is having an MVP type of season. For his price tag that is looking like a steal right now.

I seriously doubt that the Cruz acquisition had much to do with Zduriencik's firing. Bottom line, he has been the GM since October 2008 and they have had two winning seasons and no playoff appearances in 7 years.

[Frobby]

No, of course not. But I think my reasonable mid-case for those guys was something like 6 wins between them, which isn't the same as one guy giving you six wins. You could at least count on a win or a win-and-a-half out of Snider and De Aza and probably Lough. I admittedly wasn't much of a Paredes fan (and by not much of a fan I mean this and this.)

I'm not sure how you go about replacing Pearce's 6 wins @ $500k and Cruz' 3.5 or 4 @ $8M without spending a lot or taking some risks that might not get you there again. With Pearce, at least internally, you have to admit that roster spot isn't going to be as productive and no additions will get you anywhere near $12M/win for his 2014 share of plate appearances.

zWAR (the ZiPS projection of WAR) was:

Pearce 1.5 (.818 OPS)

De Aza 1.4 (.716 OPS)

Snider 0.4 (.720 OPS)

Lough 0.4 (.661 OPS)

Young 0.1 (.698 OPS)

Other OPS projections I've posted elsewhere were similar. Now here is how it has turned out so far:

Pearce 0.8 (.707 OPS)

De Aza -0.1 (.636 OPS) (for us)

Snider 0.1 (.659 OPS)

Lough -0.6 (.561 OPS)

Young -0.6 (.628 OPS)

None of those guys were sure things to produce, but to have all five epically fail was a very unfortunate outcome. Part of the Dan/Buck plan, IMO, is to have a lot of competition for some spots and then as things play out during the season, give more playing time to the guys who are producing. But none of the corner OF's produced -- not these guys, and not Reimold or Parmelee either.

[DrungoHazewood]

I seriously doubt that the Cruz acquisition had much to do with Zduriencik's firing. Bottom line, he has been the GM since October 2008 and they have had two winning seasons and no playoff appearances in 7 years.

Remember when Dave Cameron basically said it was unfair to the rest of the league that Zduriencik was hired and the Mariners would run roughshod over baseball for the foreseeable future? Sure, that's an exaggeration, but I'd love to find some early Cameron articles fawning over Jack Z and declaring success before he'd done anything.

I also remember an article from 2012 where Cameron said it was bad for baseball that teams that did things the right way like the Mariners were losing to teams that did things the wrong way like the Orioles.

[Stotle]

zWAR (the ZiPS projection of WAR) was:

Pearce 1.5 (.818 OPS)

De Aza 1.4 (.716 OPS)

Snider 0.4 (.720 OPS)

Lough 0.4 (.661 OPS)

Young 0.1 (.698 OPS)

Other OPS projections I've posted elsewhere were similar. Now here is how it has turned out so far:

Pearce 0.8 (.707 OPS)

De Aza -0.1 (.636 OPS) (for us)

Snider 0.1 (.659 OPS)

Lough -0.6 (.561 OPS)

Young -0.6 (.628 OPS)

None of those guys were sure things to produce, but to have all five epically fail was a very unfortunate outcome. Part of the Dan/Buck plan, IMO, is to have a lot of competition for some spots and then as things play out during the season, give more playing time to the guys who are producing. But none of the corner OF's produced -- not these guys, and not Reimold or Parmelee either.

Production isn't particularly dependable when talking about fringe-regulars. I think the front office had a lack of appreciation for how undependable that production is, and as a result invested around $13 million for *projected* production (not even the actual production) that was essentially replacement level for three of the five, with Pearce only projected slightly higher because of a crazy 2014 uncharacteristic of his career and De Aza having gone since 2012 as the last time he performed at an above-replacement level rate.

I don't know. That seems like a whole lot of wishful thinking. Absolutely it was bad luck to get negative value out of that collection. But even the reasonable best case scenario seems more like maybe, what?, 2 wins in the aggregate. Assuming health?

[DrungoHazewood]

Production isn't particularly dependable when talking about fringe-regulars. I think the front office had a lack of appreciation for how undependable that production is, and as a result invested around $13 million for *projected* production (not even the actual production) that was essentially replacement level for three of the five, with Pearce only projected slightly higher because of a crazy 2014 uncharacteristic of his career and De Aza having gone since 2012 as the last time he performed at an above-replacement level rate.

I don't know. That seems like a whole lot of wishful thinking. Absolutely it was bad luck to get negative value out of that collection. But even the reasonable best case scenario seems more like maybe, what?, 2 wins in the aggregate. Assuming health?

Why would the reasonable best case be half of the ZiPS projection? I'd think the best case would be more than that projection, but maybe there's a reason to think ZiPS was optimistic.

[Stotle]

Why would the reasonable best case be half of the ZiPS projection? I'd think the best case would be more than that projection, but maybe there's a reason to think ZiPS was optimistic.

Pearce's projection was heavily inflated by one blip year. De Aza had two 2+ WAR seasons back in 2011/2012. Those were the two top projected producers of the group and outside of those three seasons between their combined 15 years of ML ball neither has ever been anything other than a replacement level player. When utilizing projections I think you have to examine the statistics being utilized by the system in order to determine whether or not there is some built-in variables the system may not be catching.

I similarly would assume that Machado was a safe bet to outdistance his 2 zWAR (or whatever it was).

EDIT -- Yikes, Manny's 1.1 zWAR.

[Can_of_corn]

Production isn't particularly dependable when talking about fringe-regulars. I think the front office had a lack of appreciation for how undependable that production is, and as a result invested around $13 million for *projected* production (not even the actual production) that was essentially replacement level for three of the five, with Pearce only projected slightly higher because of a crazy 2014 uncharacteristic of his career and De Aza having gone since 2012 as the last time he performed at an above-replacement level rate.

I don't know. That seems like a whole lot of wishful thinking. Absolutely it was bad luck to get negative value out of that collection. But even the reasonable best case scenario seems more like maybe, what?, 2 wins in the aggregate. Assuming health?

But when you win by 12 games the year before, and are expecting an increase in production in other areas, then getting two wins from that group could be a viable strategy. You could also get lucky and get 4+ wins out of them.

[Stotle]

Why would the reasonable best case be half of the ZiPS projection? I'd think the best case would be more than that projection, but maybe there's a reason to think ZiPS was optimistic.

Also, that's an oddly phrased question. This isn't me saying two projected 3 WAR players will be 1.5 WAR players. It's saying five replacement level players will likely be replacement level players, or reasonably assume as a best case to be slightly above-replacement level players.