Cease vs everyone else

[Bemorewins]

12 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I don’t think anyone is missing this. Cease is just worth more because of those starts.

I haven’t seen anyone on here say we should have dealt more to get Cease knowing what it took to get Burnes.

I was not referring to our fans. I was referring to pundits, the perspective of the person who made the tweet, and CHI SOX fans who keep saying that they should get so much more for Cease. My question is WHY? He is not as good (even if he has an extra year of control remaining). 

[Sports Guy]

24 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

I was not referring to our fans. I was referring to pundits, the perspective of the person who made the tweet, and CHI SOX fans who keep saying that they should get so much more for Cease. My question is WHY? He is not as good (even if he has an extra year of control remaining). 

Well, the extra year means a lot. 

And Cease has shown he can also be a CY level guy and he actually has a higher fWAR in 2 of the last 3 years, including 2023.

Cease has also been with a garbage org, had a garbage defense behind him and pitched in the harder pitchers park.

I think Burnes is better but there are some stats that say otherwise and I certainly don’t think it’s some slam dunk that Burnes will definitely be better in 2024.

That said, I’d much rather do the deal we did but if we could have had Cease for this package plus Beavers, I would take Cease.

[Frobby]

26 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

I think Burnes is better but there are some stats that say otherwise and I certainly don’t think it’s some slam dunk that Burnes will definitely be better in 2024.

No, but it’s almost a slam dunk that Burnes will be an excellent, no. 1 type starter in 2024 (if healthy), whereas you can’t say that at all about Cease.  He could be great or he could be very pedestrian, or somewhere in between.  

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

No, but it’s almost a slam dunk that Burnes will be an excellent, no. 1 type starter in 2024 (if healthy), whereas you can’t say that at all about Cease.  He could be great or he could be very pedestrian, or somewhere in between.  

I think it’s a slam dunk that Burnes will be a great #2, not an excellent #1.

Excellent #1 is a high bar to say it’s “almost a slam dunk”.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

I think it’s a slam dunk that Burnes will be a great #2, not an excellent #1.

Excellent #1 is a high bar to say it’s “almost a slam dunk”.

I guess it depends how you define a no. 1.  Definitions vary from poster to poster.  Would you say he was a no. 1 starter last year?   Also, note that I said “no. 1 type starter.”   I’m not saying he’ll be the best pitcher on our team.   Bradish and GRod may have something to say about that.  

[Sports Guy]

27 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I guess it depends how you define a no. 1.  Definitions vary from poster to poster.  Would you say he was a no. 1 starter last year?   Also, note that I said “no. 1 type starter.”   I’m not saying he’ll be the best pitcher on our team.   Bradish and GRod may have something to say about that.  

Well I think excellent #1 type pitcher is an ace. I don’t think it’s close to a certainty that he is an ace.  I would be surprised if he’s not a sub 4 ERA guy with very good peripherals.  
 

But I think a lot of things can change there.

[ThisIsBirdland]

4 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Nobody is going to be an exact comparison. So McDermott, Stowers, and the Gunnar pick would be the closest thing we have. Maybe a little more value, maybe a little worse. Can’t be exact. I know we can’t trade regular draft picks, but I don’t know about the Gunnar pick.  Of course it’s higher, but it’s the only pick that has a possibility of being traded.

What’s so off here?  Do you think it’s too much, too less?  If Stowers were still prospect eligible he’d be in that top 17-24 range in our org. Deloach is 21 for the CWS according to mlb pipeline. 

Granted most of my info is from the MLBTR writeup of the trade, but I still struggle to see the comparison.

The easy one is the pick, mid 30's versus #69.

McDermott is regarded as a top 10 prospect in our system, often ranked as our top pitcher. Berroa is 18th in the weaker White Sox system per MLB pipeline, their 10th highest ranked pitcher, and the Mariners had already moved him to a RP pitcher role.

DeLoach has apparently struggled to ever tap into any power, but it sounds like he did so when he hit 23 HRs in AAA last year. It's an offensively inflated league though. Stowers averaged about 23 HRs from 2021-2023. Stowers is no longer prospect eligible but when MLB pipeline last had him ranked in 2022 he was 9th. I don't think his cup of coffee in the majors or his successful 2023 season would hurt him too terribly should he still be ranked but he's about 8 months older than DeLoach too.

[Just Regular]

Roto is a flawed, baseball flavored game that is still fun to play no matter how much it mis-values Saves and Steals.

Its basic categories are I feel a bit closer to the mark for starting pitchers.

A small cohort of NFBC players over the last few days peg Burnes MLB's 3rd best bet for 2024, lagging Strider and Cole.     

I think Burnes almost suffers a brilliance tax for 2020-21.    Even "declining" during 2022-23 he was one of MLB's best pitchers.    I think its more a feature than a bug he put out 1.4 years of Peak Pedro kind of numbers.     It gives me a little more wing and a prayer hope he might do it again than say Zack Wheeler or George Kirby ever getting there.

Fingers crossed baseball gifts us Burnes v. Cole head-to-head in our 10th series of the year after the 9 cupcakes.

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well I think excellent #1 type pitcher is an ace. I don’t think it’s close to a certainty that he is an ace.  I would be surprised if he’s not a sub 4 ERA guy with very good peripherals.  
 

But I think a lot of things can change there.

I really dislike these vague terms like no. 1 starter and ace (though I’m guilty of using them).  So, I’ll put it this way.  I think barring injury, Burnes is highly likely to throw 185+ innings at an ERA+ of 120 or better.   I would say Cease is unlikely to throw 185+ innings and has a less than 50% chance to have an ERA+ over 120, though he certainly could do it.  

[Number5]

4 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

And Cease has shown he can also be a CY level guy and he actually has a higher fWAR in 2 of the last 3 years, including 2023.

Textbook example of how poor fWAR is as a stat for pitchers.  Burnes clearly had the better year in 2023.  

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Textbook example of how poor fWAR is as a stat for pitchers.  Burnes clearly had the better year in 2023.  

Cease had a far better K rate.

Cease had a better FIP. 

The BaBIP vs Cease was 330..for Burnes it was 244. So, Burnes was on the luckier side and Cease was on the unluckier side. Cease was in the harder park to pitch in.

Cease missed more bats.

I actually agree with you that I think Burnes had the better year despite what fWAR says but Cease had a far better year than what the stats say and had he played on a real team, with a real defense, I think his stats look far better and much close to Burnes.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Cease had a far better K rate.

Cease had a better FIP. 

The BaBIP vs Cease was 330..for Burnes it was 244. So, Burnes was on the luckier side and Cease was on the unluckier side. Cease was in the harder park to pitch in.

Cease missed more bats.

I actually agree with you that I think Burnes had the better year despite what fWAR says but Cease had a far better year than what the stats say and had he played on a real team, with a real defense, I think his stats look far better and much close to Burnes.

Cease had an xERA of 4.11, Burnes had an xERA of 3.38.   So, Cease (4.58 ERA) was somewhat unlucky or handicapped by poor defense, but still not close to Burnes, who was neither lucky nor unlucky (3.39 ERA).   

[OriolesMagic83]

In comparing Cease to Burnes, you have to hope that Cease can recapture what made him great for one year or be content w/ a middle of rotation starter.  Obviously Elias valued the extra year of control to offer an extra mystery player, but not enough to upgrade the centerpiece.  To make the trade a good one, Burnes only has to continue on the arc he was on. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

3 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Well I think excellent #1 type pitcher is an ace. I don’t think it’s close to a certainty that he is an ace.  I would be surprised if he’s not a sub 4 ERA guy with very good peripherals.  
 

But I think a lot of things can change there.

He’s been top-10 in CYA each of the last four years (winning it once). IMO, you have to have an insanely tight definition of what a “number 1” entails if you don’t think he’s a strong bet as anyone to be a good one. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

13 hours ago, Bemorewins said:

I hope that this is NEVER true. Look at the net worth of our new owners and compare that to the Rays or Brewers owners. They are not in the same stratosphere. I hope we can be at least like the STL Cards. They are not the biggest spenders but spend enough to give themselves legit shots at rings. I believe as is proving to be the case in SD if you spend and bring in (in the case)/ retain (in our case) legitimate, face-of-the-franchise superstars and your fans can see that you are committed to winning AND you actually win; you will gain more momentum in your market (amongst your fan base) and attendance and merch sales will rise significantly.

Even if our ownership group doesn’t helicopter money, I’m guessing they’re at least way more comfortable operating at $0 surplus for multiple seasons (or even slightly in the red) than the Angelos’s were, particularly at the end there.