Jorge Lopez traded to Twins for pitching prospects (edit)

[Aristotelian]

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

And again, you have zero idea how he would have done had he not been traded.

Also, he really had 2 bad outings with Min last year that made his numbers look worse.

Maybe he does even worse if he stays on the O's. We have no idea either way. All we know is it was objectively a solid trade. 

[RZNJ]

9 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

It's called load management.  Athletes and teams are starting to catch on.  Play to the situation. These guys weren't even the tie-ing or go ahead runs. Why not head first slide everytime into first base?   

Head first slides are proven to get you to 1B slower.

[Tony-OH]

19 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Head first slides are proven to get you to 1B slower.

The only good reason to dive into first base is to avoid a tag or avoid a collision.

[Sports Guy]

25 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Maybe he does even worse if he stays on the O's. We have no idea either way. All we know is it was objectively a solid trade. 

I agree…with all of it.

But there were no signs that he was about to drop off outside of his FIP. He loved it here, etc..

 

[maybenxtyr]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

We missed the playoffs by two games last year.  Khreibel and Reed were terrible in August/September, post the Lopez trade.  I guess selling and narrowly missing the playoffs have no connection at all.  

When you miss the playoffs by only two games you start to reflect back at what could've gone differently.  If not for cost control, we could've had Adley up here sooner(we lost that extra year because of ROY voting), and we could've had Lopez.  

Also, trading Lopez led us to signing Givens.  So Elias compounded that error.  Cano becoming Eric Gagne wasn't predicted or he would've been given more looks in ST.  I'm glad we got lucky, but we got lucky as all get out.  

Cost control had nothing to do with Adley Rutschman not making the team out of ST. Please, at least be factual or state that it is your opinion. Now, they farted around and had him down longer than may have been necessary...and that may have been to try and bring him up late enough in season to miss out on qualifying for ROY. That is my opinion.

[tntoriole]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

So Bautista replaced Lopez post trade.  Who replaced Bautista last year?  Khriebel, and Reed both have been DFA'd.  Imagine if we didn't luck into Cano and our bullpen was what it was to start the season?  And Cano is a miracle and came out of nowhere.  He wasn't even getting alot of innings in ST.  Logan Gilaspie beat him out.  Let that sink in.  

I prefer to let 37-22 sink in 

[Aristotelian]

29 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I agree…with all of it.

But there were no signs that he was about to drop off outside of his FIP. He loved it here, etc..

 

Lopez reversion was completely predictable with his body of work. That's why many of us were in favor of the trade at the time.

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Lopez reversion was completely predictable with his body of work. That's why many of us were in favor of the trade at the time.

Anyone who referred to his body of work were just being ignorant. Trying to compare what he did as a starter to what he does as a reliever is just wrong.

It’s apples to oranges. There is no relevance to that comp.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Sports Guy

[Aristotelian]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Anyone who referred to his body of work were just being ignorant. Trying to compared what he did as a starter to what he does as a reliever is just wrong.

It’s apples to oranges. There is no relevance to that comp.

We saw what he did with many opportunities as a starter and then what he did over a small sample size as a reliever. You make an educated guess as to how he might do over the long term. There is definitely a world where he continues his performance but many on the board along with Elias saw it as a good opportunity to maximize his value, and that looks like a good decision now. 

[glenn__davis]

10 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Anyone who referred to his body of work were just being ignorant. Trying to compare what he did as a starter to what he does as a reliever is just wrong.

It’s apples to oranges. There is no relevance to that comp.

He's still the same pitcher.  The stuff clearly played up and he was better in the bullpen than a starter, but I wouldn't say it's apples to oranges.  More like Golden Delicious to Granny Smith.

I think Aristotelian says it pretty well above as well.  You see what he did as a starter, what he did as a reliver, and you make a guess.  Not a shock to many that he regressed a bit.  I hope he does well moving forward, he seems like a real good dude.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, glenn__davis said:

He's still the same pitcher.  The stuff clearly played up and he was better in the bullpen than a starter, but I wouldn't say it's apples to oranges.  More like Golden Delicious to Granny Smith.

I think Aristotelian says it pretty well above as well.  You see what he did as a starter, what he did as a reliver, and you make a guess.  Not a shock to many that he regressed a bit.  I hope he does well moving forward, he seems like a real good dude.

Same pitcher but different role. Pitchers can just be better in shorter stints. This isn’t new info. We see it all the time.

My issue with the “we saw a decline coming” group was that they didn’t have any info that actually said that outside of “well he wasn’t a good starter”.  
 

All of his reliever numbers suggested differently. Whether it’s traditional, new school, statcast, etc..only his FIP said he was pitching above his head and that’s not news because we all know he’s not a sub 2 ERA guy.

So, it’s not that people knew anything or even had an educated guess. It was, let’s throw this against the wall and see if it sticks because I’m searching for a reason to justify Elias here.

Now, don’t get me wrong..I have zero issue with that. Sometimes that is just what it is..a guess, a feeling, etc…

But let’s not pretend you had real info behind that guess.

If you are good with the deal because you felt it maximized his value, that’s fine.  If Cano turns back into a pumpkin and none of the other guys become something and Lopez stays a very good reliever (or I guess I should say gets back to it), your opinion shouldn’t change because you are judging the process and decision making of the trade at the time of the deal and that makes perfect sense.

I may disagree with that (for various reasons that don’t need to be rehashed) but I don’t mind that answer. That’s an honest answer.

Its not honest to say we knew he would regress based off of his numbers. 

[Aristotelian]

I would go so far as to say that if even if you extrapolate Lopez's 1st half performance and assume he's going to maintain that forever, it's still a good deal given the way it's turned out. I would trade 2.5 years of 1st half Lopez for 6 years of Cano plus prospects. I mean, assuming we can extrapolate Cano's 1st half similarly to Lopez'. 

[glenn__davis]

He was already regressing before he was dealt.  .916 OPS against in July.  Multiple blown saves.  The FIP was climbing and considerably higher than the ERA all year.

There were many signs in the numbers that his 1st half, while he was very good, was not as good as suggested, and he had already started to regress a bit.  It was more than just "well he wasn't good as a starter so he must not be good as a reliever."   I don't think it was just justification for Elias, many expected him to not be as good moving forward.

[Sports Guy]

Let’s look at this whole we think he will decline because of his past thing a different way.

Yennier Cano is 29. He had good but great MiL career. HRs and Ks were good, BBs were bad he was always much older than his competition.

His role hasn’t changed. So, what kind of decline are you expecting from him?

Edited June 6, 2023 by Sports Guy

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, glenn__davis said:

He was already regressing before he was dealt.  .916 OPS against in July.  Multiple blown saves.  The FIP was climbing and considerably higher than the ERA all year.

There were many signs in the numbers that his 1st half, while he was very good, was not as good as suggested, and he had already started to regress a bit.  It was more than just "well he wasn't good as a starter so he must not be good as a reliever."   I don't think it was just justification for Elias, many expected him to not be as good moving forward.

His first 3 outings in July weren’t good. They were all by July 4. He gave up almost nothing after. That’s a SSS of stats that skew things.

And, iirc, there were some circumstances there that were more bad luck and out of his control than him pitching poorly (but I can’t say that for 100%).