Manny for Torres straight up?

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

Good point, but Davis isn't a 200-250 million guy.  That's kinda what I was getting at.  

 

Now, Davis' deal will most likely prohibit us from keeping Manny, no doubt about that.  That's money that would have been better well spent locking up Manny instead.

I just did an update today on all the $100mm+ contacts in the history of baseball.     As to $200 mm+, there have only been 12 of them (there have been 54 between $100-200 mm).     Full list and analysis here:  http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/index.php?/topic/16807-47-players-topping-100-million-dollar-contract/&page=2&tab=comments#comment-2220950

 

 

[Frobby]

25 minutes ago, Beef Supreme said:

You were right. I lose the best. Don't know the real number but it looks like 600 more PAs for Machado

He debuted 2 years younger.    I'd still say the odds of Manny surpassing 95 WAR are probably only 20%, even though they are tied through age 24.   Not all great young players stay great and healthy through their mid-30's.   There's still lots of hills for Manny to climb.

[ArtVanDelay]

11 minutes ago, Frobby said:

He debuted 2 years younger.    I'd still say the odds of Manny surpassing 95 WAR are probably only 20%, even though they are tied through age 24.   Not all great young players stay great and healthy through their mid-30's.   There's still lots of hills for Manny to climb.

20% seems way too high.  I’d put it at 1% or less. 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

He debuted 2 years younger.    I'd still say the odds of Manny surpassing 95 WAR are probably only 20%, even though they are tied through age 24.   Not all great young players stay great and healthy through their mid-30's.   There's still lots of hills for Manny to climb.

 

54 minutes ago, ArtVanDelay said:

20% seems way too high.  I’d put it at 1% or less. 

No, that’s much too low.     There are only 29 players in the history of Baseball who have put up 24 WAR by age 24 (Manny’s at 27.9).    I did a small study of them last spring, and on average, over the next 10 years they produced 1.9 times as much WAR as they had by age 24.    So for Manny, that would be 81 WAR by age 34 as an average outcome, and of course, he might play well beyond age 34.    And that’s the average; there were several who did much better.    

[Roll Tide]

3 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

The larger issue at hand here (and, IMO, the elephant in the room) is...are the Orioles ever going to pony up to keep a super-duper star talent?

We know the history of attracting blockbuster free agents.  Off the top of my head, you'd have to go back to Miguel Tejada to recall a big time, in his prime FA to come here.  We've kept guys like Roberts, Markakis, Jones, etc in the fold.  Guys that are essential pieces to a contending team.  I am not talking about attracting big time free agents.

But Manny is on a different stratosphere.  He's going to command high dollars and will probably get it from us, or most likely somewhere else.  We don't need to re-hash this, we know where the situation stands.

While this article is pure BS and half conjecture, for arguments sake let's play make believe and say it did happen.  The Orioles trade Manny to the Yankees for Gleybar and a few other prospects, but Gleybar is the centerpiece of the deal.  

Say Gleybar turns out to be everything he's touted to be.  He's a Top 10 MLB player, just like Manny.

Are we going to be doing a bunch of handwringing in 4-5 years and wondering if the Orioles are going to keep him?  Or are we going to resign to the fact that we'll have to trade him for a package of prospects or end up letting him walk?  Are the Orioles ever going to pony up to keep a super-duper star talent?  

They paid a ton for Davis because they viewed him that way so Jc that they negotiated against themselves. IMO it's likely the Davis deal that is preventing them from trying to extend Machado.

[Frobby]

35 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

They paid a ton for Davis because they viewed him that way so Jc that they negotiated against themselves. IMO it's likely the Davis deal that is preventing them from trying to extend Machado.

If so, that’s pathetic decision making by the O’s.   That issue needed to be front and center when the Davis deal was under consideration.   I said so at the time.  

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

7 hours ago, Frobby said:

So you’re putting Manny above Cal Ripken?   I’m certainly not ready to go there.    95 WAR, two MVP’s, 19 all-star appearances, and four seasons with a higher WAR than a Manny has ever had to date, including two at ages 22 and 23.   I’ll grant you that Manny seems likely to top Eddie Murray, but Cal set a pretty tough standard to top.   

Manny might top Eddie when you look at the total package, but Eddie is clearly the better hitter if Manny has reached his peak offensively.  Eddie had a 5 year stretch where his OPS+ was 149 or higher.  

Manny's best OPS+ to date is 132 in 2015.  If Manny could be more selective, I think he could surpass.  He just has too many moments were he'll chase a bad pitch.  

[joelala]

I'd do Machado for Torres straight up.  In a heartbeat. It would be a huge step in the right direction for us.  And it would be getting absolute maximum value for Machado, which, contrary to what some are saying about that only being important because of how we are perceived, is neccesary.  Baseball is a business, lest we forget.

Also, talk of the Yankees adding in a pitching prospect on top of Torres is funny to me.  They would never.  The financial discrepancy and the whole team control thing already make the trade favor us rather heavily.  Torres is only 20 and all signs point to him being, at worst, an above average starting 3B (or SS).

In short, this trade will never happen. 

Edit:  Also, if the Yankees want Machado, they will get him after the season.  No need to lose Torres too.

[Moose Milligan]

8 hours ago, weams said:

You know what Bob Ryan says about WAR. "It's not a stat. It's not even a bunch of stats put together. It's an opinion."

I see where he's coming from and I'm inclined to agree.  However, his definition of what a stat is comes into question here.  It falls under a wide umbrella of metrics that are used to measure and rank performance.  It might not be as easy to count and easily defined as something like runs or stolen bases but it's a stat.

But where he's correct, IMO, is the differences between Baseball Reference WAR and Fangraph WAR.  At this point it becomes what website do you prefer to subscribe to to digest baseball information and analysis.  Or, if you're trying to frame an argument, which version of WAR paints your perspective in a better light.

Look, even Fangraphs cops to it:  https://www.fangraphs.com/library/war/differences-fwar-rwar/

Quote

The three main WAR sites are FanGraphs, Baseball-Reference, and Baseball Prospectus. There are other versions out there, and plenty of analysts, teams, and consultants have their own blend.

Their own blend?  What is this, Folgers, Maxwell House and Sanka?  Pepsi, Coke and the generic store brand "cola" that your mom would buy and you'd roll your eyes?  Who made these guys the purveyors of WAR?  Who's to say @Frobby can't come up with his own formula, start a really nice website and gain a cult following and create FROBBYWAR which will be forced to be considered a valid metric based on the popularity of his site?  Does Scott Boras have a team at work creating his own version of WAR to make sure he can get his players even MORE money?  

That said, I hate WAR.  I hate it.  I hate how it's the definitive trump card in any argument these days.  "Well, so-and-so has 8 WAR, your guy has 6 WAR.  And since WAR is the ultimate decision maker in any debate these days, I win, you lose."  Baseball conversations used to be fun, now they're just a race to go to baseballreference.com or Fangraphs to see who's got the better WAR.

I don't expect a midnight rant on here to change anyones mind about this, but I also don't really care.  I once saw an argument, maybe on here or on another website, that said that Juan Gonzalez was one of the worst MVPs of all time, that his stats were worthless and it came back to his low WAR.  Looking at his counting stats in his 2nd MVP year, 1998,  he hit 45 homers, 50 doubles, and drove in 157 runs while playing in 154 games.  He drove in, on average, a RUN PER GAME.  His batting average was .318, his on base was a respectable .366 and he slugged .630 (.996 OPS for you English majors).  

Since I like baseball reference better his rWAR was 4.9.  His offensive WAR was 5.1.  Defensive war was -1.0.  baseball reference goes to great lengths to explain that oWAR+dWAR doesn't equal WAR.  Whatever.

Yes, his defense sucked, but no one ever pretended that his defense was any good.  No one, ever, anywhere said that Juan Gonzalez was a great defender.  Maybe some people squinted really hard and said that he was a "capable defender" but I bet MORE people said that he was a butcher with the glove, which was probably accurate.

So.  What.  Tell me something I didn't know.

WAR loves a player like Mike Trout because he's an offensive force and a great defender.  He's essentially a 5 tool guy.  And there are very little true 5 tool guys that exist, so it makes sense that an all encompassing stat that takes a ballplayers complete body of work into account loves a complete ballplayer like Mike Trout.  

But Juan Gonzalez never pretended to be Mike Trout and no one should make that comparison in the first place.  However, he was one the premier run generators in the game for a good chunk of time and I don't think that should be discounted because his f'ing WAR isn't up to a stat snobs lofty standards.  No one came to the park to watch Juan Gonzalez in the outfield, they came to watch a guy obliterate a baseball and put runs on the board and he did that better than anyone for a few years.  And I don't even particularly CARE for Juan Gonzalez.  

I guess here's what I'm trying to say:  you can't tell me that a pitchers butthole didn't pucker up tighter when Juan Gonzalez strode to the plate with runners on base in 1998.  You can't tell me that managers didn't start considering who was up or fresh in the bullpen if a starter was in the 6th inning, getting a little tired and Juan Gone was coming to the plate with runners in scoring position.  Third time facing a starter, his OPS was 1.101.  2 outs with RISP he was 1.006.  You can't tell me that he didn't make his lineup better from an offensive perspective each and every day.  You can't tell me that pitchers and catchers didn't spend extra time and effort preparing for him.  Those things that cannot be measured on a baseball field and therefore are discredited by the sabermetrics crowd.   Yes, he gave away runs with the glove, but that wasn't the point of Juan Gonzalez.  

I'm not saying Juan Gonzalez was an amazing baseball player, he was what he was, which was a guy who could hit for a good average, a lot of power and get on base at a decent clip.  So if we can all admit to that, why do we hold his WAR against him, a stat that takes his poor defense into consideration?  He was a poor defender.  So what?  Not every baseball player can be Willie Mays or Mike Trout.

I don't even know how I got here.  I'll end it with that I hate WAR and I hope that in 10 years from now, Lord willing, there'll be another stat that everyone runs to and attaches their arguments to and WAR will be looked at as archaic and maybe even foolish.  Not as foolish as campaigning for Juan Gonzalez though.

 

8 hours ago, Frobby said:

I just did an update today on all the $100mm+ contacts in the history of baseball.     As to $200 mm+, there have only been 12 of them (there have been 54 between $100-200 mm).     Full list and analysis here:  http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/index.php?/topic/16807-47-players-topping-100-million-dollar-contract/&page=2&tab=comments#comment-2220950

 

 

This is impressive work.  Davis, too soon to tell but man, it's looking bad.  Bad.

I'm assuming Manny hits the 200 million mark.  Time will tell if it'll be good or bad, I'm tired of trying to figure it out and predict it.  

I will say, I'd be a bit concerned with how he grows into his body and where that'll play in the infield.  I'm by no means an expert but I can see Manny getting fat and losing range and quickness.  I'm not saying it'll happen, I'm just saying I can see that happening.

8 hours ago, Frobby said:

He debuted 2 years younger.    I'd still say the odds of Manny surpassing 95 WAR are probably only 20%, even though they are tied through age 24.   Not all great young players stay great and healthy through their mid-30's.   There's still lots of hills for Manny to climb.

Thats why I figured he had more at bats/plate appearances, he came in younger.

The next thing I'd want to see is that of players who have hit a specific amount of WAR (grrr) by a certain age (24 is a good place, I guess) how many of them hit that magic 95 mark? or 80, or whatever.  

[weams]

2 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I see where he's coming from and I'm inclined to agree.  However, his definition of what a stat is comes into question here.  It falls under a wide umbrella of metrics that are used to measure and rank performance.  It might not be as easy to count and easily defined as something like runs or stolen bases but it's a stat.

But where he's correct, IMO, is the differences between Baseball Reference WAR and Fangraph WAR.  At this point it becomes what website do you prefer to subscribe to to digest baseball information and analysis.  Or, if you're trying to frame an argument, which version of WAR paints your perspective in a better light.

Look, even Fangraphs cops to it:  https://www.fangraphs.com/library/war/differences-fwar-rwar/

Their own blend?  What is this, Folgers, Maxwell House and Sanka?  Pepsi, Coke and the generic store brand "cola" that your mom would buy and you'd roll your eyes?  Who made these guys the purveyors of WAR?  Who's to say @Frobby can't come up with his own formula, start a really nice website and gain a cult following and create FROBBYWAR which will be forced to be considered a valid metric based on the popularity of his site?  Does Scott Boras have a team at work creating his own version of WAR to make sure he can get his players even MORE money?  

That said, I hate WAR.  I hate it.  I hate how it's the definitive trump card in any argument these days.  "Well, so-and-so has 8 WAR, your guy has 6 WAR.  And since WAR is the ultimate decision maker in any debate these days, I win, you lose."  Baseball conversations used to be fun, now they're just a race to go to baseballreference.com or Fangraphs to see who's got the better WAR.

I don't expect a midnight rant on here to change anyones mind about this, but I also don't really care.  I once saw an argument, maybe on here or on another website, that said that Juan Gonzalez was one of the worst MVPs of all time, that his stats were worthless and it came back to his low WAR.  Looking at his counting stats in his 2nd MVP year, 1998,  he hit 45 homers, 50 doubles, and drove in 157 runs while playing in 154 games.  He drove in, on average, a RUN PER GAME.  His batting average was .318, his on base was a respectable .366 and he slugged .630 (.996 OPS for you English majors).  

Since I like baseball reference better his rWAR was 4.9.  His offensive WAR was 5.1.  Defensive war was -1.0.  baseball reference goes to great lengths to explain that oWAR+dWAR doesn't equal WAR.  Whatever.

Yes, his defense sucked, but no one ever pretended that his defense was any good.  No one, ever, anywhere said that Juan Gonzalez was a great defender.  Maybe some people squinted really hard and said that he was a "capable defender" but I bet MORE people said that he was a butcher with the glove, which was probably accurate.

So.  What.  Tell me something I didn't know.

WAR loves a player like Mike Trout because he's an offensive force and a great defender.  He's essentially a 5 tool guy.  And there are very little true 5 tool guys that exist, so it makes sense that an all encompassing stat that takes a ballplayers complete body of work into account loves a complete ballplayer like Mike Trout.  

But Juan Gonzalez never pretended to be Mike Trout and no one should make that comparison in the first place.  However, he was one the premier run generators in the game for a good chunk of time and I don't think that should be discounted because his f'ing WAR isn't up to a stat snobs lofty standards.  No one came to the park to watch Juan Gonzalez in the outfield, they came to watch a guy obliterate a baseball and put runs on the board and he did that better than anyone for a few years.  And I don't even particularly CARE for Juan Gonzalez.  

I guess here's what I'm trying to say:  you can't tell me that a pitchers butthole didn't pucker up tighter when Juan Gonzalez strode to the plate with runners on base in 1998.  You can't tell me that managers didn't start considering who was up or fresh in the bullpen if a starter was in the 6th inning, getting a little tired and Juan Gone was coming to the plate with runners in scoring position.  Third time facing a starter, his OPS was 1.101.  2 outs with RISP he was 1.006.  You can't tell me that he didn't make his lineup better from an offensive perspective each and every day.  You can't tell me that pitchers and catchers didn't spend extra time and effort preparing for him.  Those things that cannot be measured on a baseball field and therefore are discredited by the sabermetrics crowd.   Yes, he gave away runs with the glove, but that wasn't the point of Juan Gonzalez.  

I'm not saying Juan Gonzalez was an amazing baseball player, he was what he was, which was a guy who could hit for a good average, a lot of power and get on base at a decent clip.  So if we can all admit to that, why do we hold his WAR against him, a stat that takes his poor defense into consideration?  He was a poor defender.  So what?  Not every baseball player can be Willie Mays or Mike Trout.

I don't even know how I got here.  I'll end it with that I hate WAR and I hope that in 10 years from now, Lord willing, there'll be another stat that everyone runs to and attaches their arguments to and WAR will be looked at as archaic and maybe even foolish.  Not as foolish as campaigning for Juan Gonzalez though.

 

This is impressive work.  Davis, too soon to tell but man, it's looking bad.  Bad.

I'm assuming Manny hits the 200 million mark.  Time will tell if it'll be good or bad, I'm tired of trying to figure it out and predict it.  

I will say, I'd be a bit concerned with how he grows into his body and where that'll play in the infield.  I'm by no means an expert but I can see Manny getting fat and losing range and quickness.  I'm not saying it'll happen, I'm just saying I can see that happening.

Thats why I figured he had more at bats/plate appearances, he came in younger.

The next thing I'd want to see is that of players who have hit a specific amount of WAR (grrr) by a certain age (24 is a good place, I guess) how many of them hit that magic 95 mark? or 80, or whatever.  

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/03/03/bob-ryan-declares-war-war/ErbD99zVKGfn1XjonlmBBK/story.html

https://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/mlb-5-weaknesses-of-the-war-statistic-explained.html/?a=viewall

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2017/11/20/bill-james-who-spurred-baseballs-analytics-revolution-is-waging-a-mini-war-on-war/?utm_term=.be52b3f9c22d

http://joeposnanski.com/war-is-stupid-people-are-stupid/

What is it good for?

 

 

[Luke-OH]

WAR is as fallible as the component stats that make it up.

Bill James’s argument against WAR is that player WAR should add up with replacement level to equal team wins.  The fangraphs guys argue that that would help or punish players for the sequencing of the events, something that isn’t under a player’s control.

One thing WAR does that is extremely valuable (component stats like wRAA do it too) is that it takes performance and adjusts it for context (park factors and league wide offensive environment). 

 

 

[weams]

1 hour ago, RZNJ said:

It was a great rant but I'm not sure that you made a point.   

Bobby Grich = Jeter 

That's the point of his rant. 

[Roll Tide]

9 hours ago, Black Bat said:

Agreed.  They can and should get more since Torres is on the shelf for a bit and Manny is a proven commodity.  Throw in a SP prospect and it can be done.  Maybe Kaprielien?  I'd like your feedback on that since you're one of the few that have been open-minded toward a rebuild since early last season. 

I've been pointing toward this trade since mid-season since learning that both Boston and NYY have the need at 3B and can afford his salary.  Not many other teams would realistically be in the running for him.  Of course, O's fans would jump off ledges but this could work out in concert with the rebuild going on toward 2019.  It could also afford the O's the money more readily available once Davis' contract runs its course to extend Torres when that time comes as well as the younger SP's who will need to be extended.  I can foresee PA having heartburn giving Manny the moon so recently removed from the disastrous CD extension.  

Kaprielian pitched about 40 innings in 2016 and did not pitch in 2017 due to Tommy John surgery.

personally I wouldn't want 2 guys coming off major surgery. Doubt the Orioles would have the stomach to do such a deal either.

i think a lot of guys here would like to see a rebuild, they just don't talk about it due to the fact that the Os seem to be adamantly against it.

i said somewhere else that it would take 3-4 players to get it done and Torres is a great prospect but he's still just that and is more likely to be a very good player than a star type player.

For me it would take Torres, LHP Sheffield, RHP Widener, and RHP Carroll or something close. The list  I used has a little age 6/2017 so it might have to be adjusted but at the time it would be their 1, 4, 15, and 24th rated prospects. 

I also like Acevedo, Sauer, and Schmidt so there is room to wiggle....For a talent like Machado that they are high likely to extend im not worried about the surplus value arguments. He's a once in a decade type player and I'm sure the Yankees can afford to pay him. 

And they'd have the benefit of an exclusive period to negotiate over having competition next year.

[Frobby]

8 hours ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Manny might top Eddie when you look at the total package, but Eddie is clearly the better hitter if Manny has reached his peak offensively.  Eddie had a 5 year stretch where his OPS+ was 149 or higher.  

Manny's best OPS+ to date is 132 in 2015.  If Manny could be more selective, I think he could surpass.  He just has too many moments were he'll chase a bad pitch.  

Agreed that Eddie was the better hitter.    We’ll see if Manny has another gear, but I’m not counting on it.   

[Frobby]

Interesting article here on the “buyer’s market” at 3B.    It’s about how that applies to the Blue Jays and Josh Donaldson, but it’s equally applicable to the Orioles and Manny.    This sentence is telling: “Historically, the public expectation of what elite players will return in trade is less than they actually return when traded.”

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/third-base-looks-like-a-buyers-market/