Analyzing the 2017 Hitters' Market

[Roll Tide]

1 minute ago, Camden_yardbird said:

How does Trumbo on a 4 year deal square with a tear down/ rebuild?  What if he reverts to Arizona Trumbo?  I like the production and interviews from last year of other players said they love him in the clubhouse because he makes every other hitter better, but then again so did Luke Scott.

Would love to see a hitter signed for a shorter period of time, and a pick retained.

It would depend on the cost! If he can be signed for 4/52 it would be a good contract and one you could deal regardless. I think he has to face that he's not getting 20 million per or anywhere close.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

It would depend on the cost! If he can be signed for 4/52 it would be a good contract and one you could deal regardless. I think he has to face that he's not getting 20 million per or anywhere close.

You do recall he was traded for a backup catcher last year right?

And he didn't have 4/52 attached.

[Babypowder]

18 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You do recall he was traded for a backup catcher last year right?

And he didn't have 4/52 attached.

Right, people are really ignoring that this is a guy who has been worth about ~1 win a season for his career. A 4/52 contract is not a good deal, it's likely an overpay and potentially a large one especially considering the value of the pick. I'd be lukewarm at something like 2/20, and only want him as a DH. Even as a DH only, I'd prefer a 1 year deal for Carter, who is basically identical offensively. Although ideally for me I would have grabbed Rasmus or pursued a short term deal with Saunders instead of either.

[Can_of_corn]

11 minutes ago, Babypowder said:

Right, people are really ignoring that this is a guy who has been worth about ~1 win a season for his career. A 4/52 contract is not a good deal, it's likely an overpay and potentially a large one especially considering the value of the pick. I'd be lukewarm at something like 2/20, and only want him as a DH. Even as a DH only, I'd prefer a 1 year deal for Carter, who is basically identical offensively. Although ideally for me I would have grabbed Rasmus or pursued a short term deal with Saunders instead of either.

I'd be OK with him at first but...

[Babypowder]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd be OK with him at first but...

Yes indeed. He makes the most sense for Colorado (for whatever it is they think they are doing) or someone else who actually needs a first baseman. He doesn't have much value elsewhere, even at his offensive ceiling.

[Number5]

11 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

 Because we only lose like 10 spots in the first round. We would lose our first round pick,  but then gain a pick at the end of the first for Trumbo. 10 spots for me in the MLB draft is not a deterrent for signing a guy. 

http://m.mlb.com/draft/2017/order

We would lose pick 21 but then gain pick 30. Maybe even 29 if a team signing Trumbo is still eligible to lose a pick. So 9 spots in the draft. Likely 8.  Not a big deal. 

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.  Regardless of whether we get a pick for Trumbo signing elsewhere or we don't get the pick and he signs with us, signing Bautista would cost our first round pick if we were to sign him, which carries meaningful value.  We discussed conservatively a value of some $12.5 million in today dollars, but I saw a couple of articles that put it higher than that.  Any consideration to signing Bautista must account for losing the value of that first round pick.  To pretend that value isn't there would be a tremendous error in judgment.  Fortunately, I don't think we need to worry about DD making such a mistake.

[Roll Tide]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

You do recall he was traded for a backup catcher last year right?

And he didn't have 4/52 attached.

Do you believe his value is the same? Based on his season there is some

 

i believe his offense has value and it's the Orioles fault that they played him in RF. I would DH him and 3-4 years at 12-13 per is fair.

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Do you believe his value is the same? Based on his season there is some

 

i believe his offense has value and it's the Orioles fault that they played him in RF. I would DH him and 3-4 years at 12-13 per is fair.

I think his value is somewhere between Clevenger and where you think his value should be.

Probably something like this.

Roll Tide's evaluation

---

---

---

---

---

Reality

---

---

Clevenger

 

[Roll Tide]

6 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think his value is somewhere between Clevenger and where you think his value should be.

Probably something like this.

Roll Tide's evaluation

---

---

---

---

---

Reality

---

---

Clevenger

 

You don't value 45-50 HR and 100-110 RBIs at 12-13 million per? Do the Orioles? Rumor of their first offer was ?

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

You don't value 45-50 HR and 100-110 RBIs at 12-13 million per? Do the Orioles? Rumor of their first offer was ?

I don't particularly value runs batted in, since they are team and situation dependent.

I don't value 45-50 HRs when they come from a guy that averages 34 a year and has literally nothing else to offer.  He can't field (outside of first which isn't an option) he can't get on base and he can't run.  He's a one tool guy that is coming off a career year.

[crawjo]

I'd give Trumbo $15 per hour. 

[sportsfan8703]

22 hours ago, Number5 said:

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.  Regardless of whether we get a pick for Trumbo signing elsewhere or we don't get the pick and he signs with us, signing Bautista would cost our first round pick if we were to sign him, which carries meaningful value.  We discussed conservatively a value of some $12.5 million in today dollars, but I saw a couple of articles that put it higher than that.  Any consideration to signing Bautista must account for losing the value of that first round pick.  To pretend that value isn't there would be a tremendous error in judgment.  Fortunately, I don't think we need to worry about DD making such a mistake.

Right now we have the #21(original pick) and #30(Trumbo comp pick) pick in the first round.

 We could not sign Trumbo or Bautista and keep both.  

We could keep Trumbo and never get the #30 pick but still have our #21 pick.  

We could sign Bautista and lose our #21 pick but gain the #29 pick.    

I understand not counting picks before it happens, but this is the situation.  8 spots in the draft wouldn't affect my decision if Bautista signed for a good deal with us.  He's clearly the better player.  Trumbo has been worth 9.6 WAR in his 7 year career.  Bautista has been worth 12.2 WAR just over the last 3 years.  Going further back than 3 years requires a calculator for Bautista.   

[Number5]

21 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Right now we have the #21(original pick) and #30(Trumbo comp pick) pick in the first round.

 We could not sign Trumbo or Bautista and keep both.  

We could keep Trumbo and never get the #30 pick but still have our #21 pick.  

We could sign Bautista and lose our #21 pick but gain the #29 pick.    

I understand not counting picks before it happens, but this is the situation.  8 spots in the draft wouldn't affect my decision if Bautista signed for a good deal with us.  He's clearly the better player.  Trumbo has been worth 9.6 WAR in his 7 year career.  Bautista has been worth 12.2 WAR just over the last 3 years.  Going further back than 3 years requires a calculator for Bautista.   

How are you not seeing that the Orioles must consider the value of the first round pick as a definite part of the cost in a signing of Bautista?  This is an absolute regardless of anything having to do with Trumbo, or the potential comp pick involved with him.  The two are simply separate issues.  Fortunately, there is little doubt that the Orioles do, in fact, understand this.

[Frobby]

On 1/10/2017 at 9:58 AM, Babypowder said:

Right, people are really ignoring that this is a guy who has been worth about ~1 win a season for his career. 

While I'm not anxious to have Trumbo back on a multi-year deal, I think this statement, while close enough to true, understates Trumbo's likely value over the next four years.    In 2014 he was hurt for a large chunk of the season and its kind of an anomoly IMO.     In his other five seasons he's been worth 9.8 fWAR, about 2 per season.    I think OPACY plays to his strengths and he's a decent bet to put up 7-8 WAR the next four years and justify a 4/$52 mm deal.    I'm just not big on allocating our resources to him.

[Babypowder]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

While I'm not anxious to have Trumbo back on a multi-year deal, I think this statement, while close enough to true, understates Trumbo's likely value over the next four years.    In 2014 he was hurt for a large chunk of the season and its kind of an anomoly IMO.     In his other five seasons he's been worth 9.8 fWAR, about 2 per season.    I think OPACY plays to his strengths and he's a decent bet to put up 7-8 WAR the next four years and justify a 4/$52 mm deal.    I'm just not big on allocating our resources to him.

I'll take the under.