Gausman Versus Archer

[MurphDogg]

In this thread I suggested that Archer would get a significantly greater return and that opinion was met with some resistance. The Gausman return was weakened by the inclusion of a salary dump of O'Day, but it wouldn't be surprising if all three of the players in the Archer trade become average Major League players. It wouldn't be surprising if none of the players in the Gausman trade become average Major League players. 

[Aristotelian]

1 hour ago, wildbillhiccup said:

2016...179.2 innings pitched...with a 3.61 era... in the AL East. I think I'd certainly qualify that as a good season. 

Not close to Archers second best year. And Archer piched in the same division but he had to face our lineup while Gausman got to face theirs. 

[Frobby]

17 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

Yes, Gausman has never had a truly good season as a starting pitcher. Archer was elite in 2015 and close in 2014. bWAR has them fairly close but Archer destroys Gausman in fWAR (19 to 11).

 

17 hours ago, wildbillhiccup said:

2016...179.2 innings pitched...with a 3.61 era... in the AL East. I think I'd certainly qualify that as a good season. 

 

16 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

Not close to Archers second best year. And Archer piched in the same division but he had to face our lineup while Gausman got to face theirs. 

Nobody said it was as good as Archer’s second best year.   You said Gausman had never had a “truly good” year as a starting pitcher.   An ERA+ of 119 is pretty darned good.   

While I agree that Archer > Gausman, it is rather striking that Archer’s had a 98 ERA+ over the last three seasons, compared to 115 prior to that.    He’s 29 now and you have to wonder if his best years are behind him.    Gausman hasn’t been a ball of fire the last two years, either, but he’s 2 years younger and has less wear and tear on his arm.   I’d still give Archer a slight edge in terms of who’ll be better from now through 2020, and then Archer is still under control for 2021 while Gausman is not, which is a big reason why Archer had more trade value.   

[Aristotelian]

21 minutes ago, Frobby said:

 

 

Nobody said it was as good as Archer’s second best year.   You said Gausman had never had a “truly good” year as a starting pitcher.   An ERA+ of 119 is pretty darned good.   

While I agree that Archer > Gausman, it is rather striking that Archer’s had a 98 ERA+ over the last three seasons, compared to 115 prior to that.    He’s 29 now and you have to wonder if his best years are behind him.    Gausman hasn’t been a ball of fire the last two years, either, but he’s 2 years younger and has less wear and tear on his arm.   I’d still give Archer a slight edge in terms of who’ll be better from now through 2020, and then Archer is still under control for 2021 while Gausman is not, which is a big reason why Archer had more trade value.   

I guess you have a lower bar than me.  I consider "truly good" to be close to 3.00, maybe 3.30 in the AL East. In the last few years, Sale, Sanchez, Tanaka, Porcello, Happ, Stroman, Severino, Estrada, Chen, Odorizzi have all achieved that. A few did it multiple times. Only one Cy Young winner (Porcello). For 3.60 ERA, I would go with "good" but not "truly good".

[Frobby]

Just now, Aristotelian said:

I guess you have a lower bar than me.  I consider "truly good" to be close to 3.00, maybe 3.30 in the AL East. In the last few years, Sale, Sanchez, Tanaka, Porcello, Happ, Stroman, Severino, Estrada, Chen, Odorizzi have all achieved that. A few did it multiple times. Only one Cy Young winner (Porcello). For 3.60 ERA, I would go with "good" but not "truly good".

Yeah, it always gets tricky because people have different definitions of adjectives (like “truly good”) and labels (like “ace” or “no. 3 starter”).   

Out of 40 AL qualifiers, Gausman’s 119 ERA+ in 2016 ranked 13th.    I’ll leave it to you to decide if that’s “good,” “truly good” or something else.    

[Finisher]

17 hours ago, MurphDogg said:

The Gausman return was weakened by the inclusion of a salary dump of O'Day, but it wouldn't be surprising if all three of the players in the Archer trade become average Major League players. It wouldn't be surprising if none of the players in the Gausman trade become average Major League players. 

Safe assumption.

Tampa killed it with that trade. Archer's reputation definitely supersedes his actual results of late.

The Gausman trade is the one that bothers me because he was our best trade chip and we mainly leveraged that value to salary dump. Squandered an opportunity to get some nice pieces from Pittsburgh.

[Camden_yardbird]

I think the Pirates had really soured on Glasnow, saw Meadows as fading excess sho couldn't compete in AAA, and Baz was the price for doing business.  Could the Orioles have gotten the same thing from the Pirates?  Maybe, but comparing packages by expectation of future value I think the Pirates backpage is probably overvalued by us (the public) but not the baseball people, and the Braves package is undervalued by us as baseball outsiders.