Pedro Alvarez

[esmd]

I don't get the lack of desire to re-sign The Bull.  Looking at his career numbers, he's actually pretty comparable to Trumbo, and I have to think they could get him for a lot less.

Trumbo 162 game career avg:  .251 BA, .303 OBP, .776 OPS, 34 HRs, 99 RBIs, 163 K's

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/trumbma01.shtml

Alvarez 162 game career avg:  .238 BA, .311 OBP, .759 OPS, 29 HRs, 86 RBIs, 172 K's

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/alvarpe01.shtml

They paid Alvarez 5.75M last season, I've got to believe they could sign him to a 2 or 3 year deal with an AAV of somewhere in the 7-8M range, which is half of what Trumbo would cost and one less season.  Plus he's a left handed bat, which they have stated is desirable for them.  No denying Trumbo's numbers are slightly better, but Alvarez is no slouch, and for half the AAV, it just seems to me to be a much better value.  What am I missing here?

[weams]

Not the MLB home run champion, 2016.

[esmd]

True.  Wouldn't surprise me at all to see him hit 35+ in 2017 if we re-sign him, though.

And for you sabremetrics guys, Trumbo had a 1.6 WAR last season - his career high was 2.9 in 2011.  Pedro was .7 last year, with a career high of 3.3 in 2013.  I'm not an expert on WAR at all, but my guess is that .7 is partially due to him only playing part time.  Not sure how his WAR would've projected out if he'd had around 600 plate appearances last season.

[theobird]

I would much rather sign Alvarez for a reasonable deal than Trumbo for what is expected to be a lot more. Alvarez fits the team better, and he and Mancini would make a nice DH platoon.

[backwardsk]

I like Alvarez.

However, if you do sign him, you are committing to play Kim in LF and lose the opportunity to DH him.  You are also using two roster spots with little to no defensive value (Mancini could spell Davis).

[scOtt]

I've been pushing Pedro for a while. Him and Bourn in RF. Decent, affordable and the 2 biggest holes filled. Just tweaking and toggling after that.

[PaulFolk]

56 minutes ago, esmd said:

True.  Wouldn't surprise me at all to see him hit 35+ in 2017 if we re-sign him, though.

And for you sabremetrics guys, Trumbo had a 1.6 WAR last season - his career high was 2.9 in 2011.  Pedro was .7 last year, with a career high of 3.3 in 2013.  I'm not an expert on WAR at all, but my guess is that .7 is partially due to him only playing part time.  Not sure how his WAR would've projected out if he'd had around 600 plate appearances last season.

It would've been worse, because most of those extra PAs would've come against lefties, whom he can't hit.

[esmd]

Fair enough.  I have to wonder though, if he was the full-time DH against RHP, how that would shake out.  He would still face some lefties once the starter was out of the game unless they PH Mancini for him.  I have to believe he'd be better than .7 in that scenario.  Not sure if he'd get to 1.6, I dunno.  Just seems like that's a better option than bringing Trumbo back, plus you get to see what Mancini can do, at least against LHP.

[PaulFolk]

1 minute ago, esmd said:

Fair enough.  I have to wonder though, if he was the full-time DH against RHP, how that would shake out.  He would still face some lefties once the starter was out of the game unless they PH Mancini for him.  I have to believe he'd be better than .7 in that scenario.  Not sure if he'd get to 1.6, I dunno.  Just seems like that's a better option than bringing Trumbo back, plus you get to see what Mancini can do, at least against LHP.

That's more or less what he was in 2016 -- Alvarez started 77% of the Orioles' games against right-handed starters this year (89 of 116). Sure, the O's could've squeezed another 10-20 starts out of him, but I don't think that would've moved the WAR needle very much.

I'd be OK with bringing back Pedro and platooning him with Mancini, but then you basically have two position players who aren't going to play any positions in the field (except for Mancini occasionally giving Davis a breather at 1B). I agree that I'd rather have Pedro on a cheap deal than Trumbo on an expensive 4-year deal.

[backwardsk]

11 minutes ago, esmd said:

Fair enough.  I have to wonder though, if he was the full-time DH against RHP, how that would shake out.  He would still face some lefties once the starter was out of the game unless they PH Mancini for him.  I have to believe he'd be better than .7 in that scenario.  Not sure if he'd get to 1.6, I dunno.  Just seems like that's a better option than bringing Trumbo back, plus you get to see what Mancini can do, at least against LHP.

He started 89 of the 116 games against RH starters.

[Can_of_corn]

I'm not at all interested in giving a platoon DH a multi-year contract.

 

[backwardsk]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I'm not at all interested in giving a platoon DH a multi-year contract.

 

I think he can be had for a smaller deal than he had last season.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, backwardsk said:

I think he can be had for a smaller deal than he had last season.

Could be, I don't think he did anything to merit a raise.

The OP was throwing out the idea of a 2-3 year contract.

[clapdiddy]

I'd rather have Alvarez at 1/7 than Trumbo in anything more than a two-year deal.

[esmd]

I don't have a problem with a multi-year deal if it's cheap.  If they can get him to take the same or even less than he made last year, all the better. I think the production he offers makes it a value signing, even on a 2/11.5M or 3/17.25 deal.  You'd be getting a guy who'll hit 25+ HRs as a platoon DH who can play the field in emergent circumstances for 3 years at less than a 1 year QO.