Jump to content

Jose Iglesias traded to Angels.


LookinUp

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, owknows said:

Valaika hit 8 HR's in 150 AB's last year

And his career numbers project to well over 30 per 600 AB's

 

I think he is an unrealized bat

30 Homers in Denver or Albuquerque maybe but not in Baltimore.  I think he will hit if he plays regularly but  30 homers a little much to ask for IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Hope so. I love my seats, I truly think they are the best value in the stadium (front row of the upper deck, directly behind home plate). I just hope at some point to watch a home team that is interested in winning. A winning team also might help me get a better sales price on my house when I decamp for the suburbs.

What makes you think they’re not interested in winning? Is it this move, or is it the GM saying they’re not interested in winning?

...though I’m in favor of this move.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see how SS musical chairs plays out.   I don't think Iglesias was ever among the Best 30 for 2021-2022+, and we got a near career year and something.   Of course I'm a Lindor Cohort '22 guy and was never too invested in the '21 deck chair.

Villar re-union?   Or my precious Profar - now we can offer him a SS job along with full time play to chase his riches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wildcard said:

30 Homers in Denver or Albuquerque maybe but not in Baltimore.  I think he will hit if he plays regularly but  30 homers a little much to ask for IMO.

 

Just now, wildcard said:

30 Homers in Denver or Albuquerque maybe but not in Baltimore.  I think he will hit if he plays regularly but  30 homers a little much to ask for IMO.

8 HR's in 150 AB's (which he hit with the O's last year) would be 32 HR's in a 600 AB season

Consistent with his career numbers

No reason to think it's not real

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

What makes you think they’re not interested in winning? Is it this move, or is it the GM saying they’re not interested in winning?

...though I’m in favor of this move.

They are interested in winning ... sometime in the future, with no publicly available timeline as to when that will be. Until then, tickets are still full price and beers are still $8.75, so come on out to the Yard to root for whoever they put on the field with 12-15,000 other people. Works out well for Elias' job security though.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, andrewochs615 said:

2021 I can accept and expect more of the same this year. But 2022 I won't accept, they need to make an effort next year and need to start spending money next offseason. They keep preaching how the Astros did it (minus the cheating), it took them 3 100 loss seasons. Well next year would be our 4th and 3rd under Elias given that this year would of amounted to 100 losses

They will not lose a 100 in 2021.  Mullins, Hays, Mountcastle, Mancini, Santander,  Valaika, Diaz and maybe even Rutschman in the 2nd half.   Means, Kremer, Akins, Cobb.  And a good 7 or 8 relievers in the pen.    This team will not lose 100.  And I think they will be fun to watch.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Philip said:

This doesn’t make sense! The timing is terrible, and now is the worst time of the year to make a trade, why in the world they do this now?

I'm not sure this is the worst time to make a trade. There's a lot of SS options on the FA market this winter. Iglesias is the cheap one-year contract option available via trade. As guys land places, though, his demand likely goes down. Right now you have the leverage of "there are a lot of teams that could use a dirt cheap producer at SS, do you want to have to bid on the FA guys or do you want to get this done?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

They will not lose a 100 in 2021.  Mullins, Hays, Mountcastle, Mancini, Santander,  Valaika, Diaz and maybe even Rutschman in the 2nd half.   Means, Kremer, Akins, Cobb.  And a good 7 or 8 relievers in the pen.    This team will not lose 100.  And I think they will be fun to watch.

I'll agree that they probably won't lose 100, heck they might not even play 100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • Great post.  I like your optimism, and I'll try to believe this team can turn things around just in the nick of time like some classic Hollywood baseball movie.
    • I think Elias has mostly done an excellent job with one exception -- he seems like he treats the bullpen like an afterthought.  I doubt that will happen again this coming offseason. I don't really blame him for the current offensive struggles overall.  Just too many injuries late in the season.  That said I don't understand how we went from dealing Austin Hays, Connor Norby and Ryan McKenna just so we could land the right handed bat of, gulp, Austin Slater.  
    • Man this team has no shot. Right now they may not even make it. 
    • Most of these guys are only playing because of injuries to starters.  But Austin Slater I'm guessing was brought in to replace the traded Austin Hays.  The problem is that Slater has shown little ability to hit lefties this year, after hitting them pretty well up to this season.  This must be why two teams dropped him before the O's picked him up.  I know he was let go much earlier in the season, but is Ryan McKenna actually worse than this guy?  I don't understand how the front office went from releasing McKenna to later trading Hays and Norby -- thinking their right handed bats could adequately be replaced by someone like Slater.  
    • I'm willing to give Elias some rope because of the strict limitations he was under with JA but he better not be so damn conservative again this year and let every serviceable FA out there sign with other teams while he's busy picking up reclamation projects again. Minus Burns of course.  
    • I agree completely that it’s irrelevant whether it worked.  But I don’t agree that bunting is clearly the right decision in either scenario, and I think that decision gets worse if it’s intended to be a straight sacrifice rather than a bunt for a hit. To be clear, the outcome you’re seeking in tonight’s situation, for example — sacrifice the runners over to 2nd/3rd — lowers both your run expectancy for the inning (from 1.44 to 1.39) and your win expectancy for the game (from 38.8% to 37.1%). It increases the likelihood of scoring one run, but it decreases the likelihood of scoring two runs (which you needed to tie) and certainly of scoring three or more runs (which you needed to take the lead).  And that’s if you succeed in getting them to 2nd/3rd. Research indicates that 15-30% of sacrifice bunt attempts fail, so you have to bake in a pretty significant percentage of the time that you’d just be giving up a free out (or even just two free strikes, as on Sunday). The bunt attempt in the 3rd inning on Sunday (which my gut hates more than if they’d done it today) actually is less damaging to the win probability — decreasing it only very slightly from 60.2% to 59.8%. More time left in the game to make up for giving up outs, I guess, and the scoreboard payoff is a bit better (in the sense that at least you’d have a better chance to take the lead).   At the bottom of it, these things mostly come down to gut and pure chance. The percentages are rarely overwhelming in either direction, and so sometimes even a “lower-percentage” play may work better under some circumstances. You would have bunted both times. I wouldn’t have bunted either time. Hyde bunted one time but not the other. I don’t know that anyone is an idiot (or even clearly “wrong”) for their preference. Either approach could have worked. Sadly, none of them actually did.
    • Wasn't Hyde always thought of more or less as a caretaker? I'm on the fence about him coming back. I totally get the injuries and that needs to be taking into consideration but man this collapse some heads have to roll who's I'm  mot sure 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...