Jump to content

Is Matt Chapman a potential trade target?


Sports Guy

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Not sure if he is playing with an injury this season but his DWAR is significantly down accord to BRef as well.   I'm sure there are other defensive metrics but that's the one I'm looking at.

So an older guy who might be hurt?

I'm starting to come around on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Ballpark isn't relevant.

The bat is the bat, the numbers will vary from park to park but not the bat itself.

And yes I am not expecting his bat to improve as he gets older.  Unless you are Nelson Cruz that is how it generally works.

Nelson Cruz is a dumb comp.  We aren’t talking about a guy in his mid 30s.  Guys can have off years.  
 

Im not overly concerned that he won’t be a good player for us.

I agree he has some alarming trends but that’s also why I’m not willing to give up the amount of talent I would have given up a year or 2 ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Nelson Cruz is a dumb comp.  We aren’t talking about a guy in his mid 30s.  Guys can have off years.  
 

Im not overly concerned that he won’t be a good player for us.

I agree he has some alarming trends but that’s also why I’m not willing to give up the amount of talent I would have given up a year or 2 ago.

That's good because I wasn't comparing him to Cruz.

If he were on the O's I'd be looking to move him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chapman's performance aside, don't see how its smart to trade prospects to fill one hole on a team that has numerous others. Especially when they likely won't be legit championship contenders when Chapman's on the team. 

Rather sign Seager as a placeholder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LookinUp said:

The typical fan's perspective is simple. Pay the Free Agent (Bryant) before giving up prospects for a similarly valued player. 

One costs prospects. The other costs more money. It's not our money, so we go with the latter. The problem, of course, is Kris Bryant is a FA who is free to choose where he wants to go. He's not coming here unless he's one of many pieces coming here in some Marlins-like splash. That's not happening, so he's not coming here. Period.

With that said, we have a 1-2 year hole at 3B right now. Do we fill it to be more respectable but still a losing team next year or do we wait for Gunnar/Mayo? 

I think Elias waits, and the debate is about the implications of waiting.

Yea, I would rather sign Bryant.  I’m curious as to his contract.  I’m good with a 6/180 Deal.  Not sure if he tops that or not or if that’s enough to entice him to come here.

Seager is on an option and it’s affordable in the grand scheme of things.  He’s more likely to stay in Seattle than be available imo, especially since they are on the cusp of contention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

It makes no sense.

There is zero chance the O's contend next season so you are trading all that and paying two years of Arbitration in the hopes that he makes the 2023 team a playoff team.

Hard pass.

Exactly. Even 2023 seems like a pipe dream. Two years of any player isn’t changing this franchise the next two years. 

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...