Jump to content

Bowden trade proposal: Kjerstad to CLE for two bullpen pieces


ChipTait

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’m curious about your reference to “career middling relievers.”   These are two guys who have all 6 years of service time remaining, and Smith had never pitched in the majors.   So what “career”do you mean?  Minor leagues?  I’ll grant you that neither had a great ERA there, though Smith at 14.1 K/9 (14.6 in AAA) is pretty intriguing.  I’d defer to the Orioles evaluators as to what their major league potential is.  

Yes strictly basing my two 'guys' statement based on their careers so far up through the minors.  For all I know they may turn into an Andrew Miller but I am not risking my second pick in the draft who has performed very well so far on it.  I mean his ranking and performance in the minor leagues dwarfed those 2 performance wise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RZNJ said:

I’m fine with trading Kjerstad but not for two relievers who might not be better than we have.  Couldn’t Gaddis and Smith just as easily turn into pumpkins?  Do they have some kind of track record beyond their first 15 innings pitched this year?  Gaddis had a 4.50 ERA for the Guardians and Smith had a 4.00 ERA in AAA.  All of a sudden those guys are studs.  If we go by the first 15 innings then Suarez, Webb, Coulombe, and Akin are all studs too.  So tell me which 2-3 pitchers do you want to DFA.  Akin is the only one with options.   You want to trade Kjerstad for two relievers you’re sure are that much better than what we already have?

Wanna make an omelette, you gotta break some eggs.  If not these two, some others.  Like I said, I'm shopping Kjerstad if I get to call the shots.

You sure seem convinced that Kjerstad is really going to turn into that 30 homer guy, too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OnlyOneOriole said:

Ummmmm...maybe because he is a top 100 prospect and a former #2 draft pick and the 2 guys from Clev have been middling relievers there entire careers?

 

Tell ya what.  Why don't you offer 2 of our average middle relievers to XXX team for a top 100 prospect and top 5 pick and see how far you get without being laughed out of the room.

 

Some of the takes I see from people such as yourself....wanting to trade top talent for relievers who are literally a dime a dozen...is wild to me.

What would you give for Torkelson?

He's a former #1 pick.

Tim Beckham was a #1 pick and the O's got him for Tobias Myers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Wanna make an omelette, you gotta break some eggs.  If not these two, some others.  Like I said, I'm shopping Kjerstad if I get to call the shots.

You sure seem convinced that Kjerstad is really going to turn into that 30 homer guy, too.  

I  don’t break eggs to make an omelette if I already have a warm one on the plate.

I’m not convinced of anything. Kjerstad could be a 30 homer guy.  Maybe not.  If I had to bet, I’d bet on the 30.  That’s not the point.   The point is if you trade Kjerstad it should be for a difference maker.  Have you ever even seen Cade Smith pitch?   Are you convinced he’s a difference making setup man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

What would you give for Torkelson?

He's a former #1 pick.

Tim Beckham was a #1 pick and the O's got him for Tobias Myers.

Difference is Heston has performed so far in the minors and looks as though he is starting to get his feet under him with the parent club.  He has given the O's no reason to not expect him to do well into the future.  Especially in 2025 when he will probably be a starter.

Edited by OnlyOneOriole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

I  don’t break eggs to make an omelette if I already have a warm one on the plate.

I’m not convinced of anything. Kjerstad could be a 30 homer guy.  Maybe not.  If I had to bet, I’d bet on the 30.  That’s not the point.   The point is if you trade Kjerstad it should be for a difference maker.  Have you ever even seen Cade Smith pitch?   Are you convinced he’s a difference making setup man?

Yup.  Sure have. 
 

Congrats on your omelette!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

Yup.  Sure have. 
 

Congrats on your omelette!

So you’re convinced Cade Smith is going to have a big year for the Guardians?   What’s your scouting report?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OnlyOneOriole said:

Difference is Heston has performed so far in the minors and looks as though he is starting to get his feet under him with the parent club.  He has given the O's no reason to not expect him to do well into the future.  Especially in 2025 when he will probably be a starter.

That's the important part, not that he was the second pick.

Other than you who cares about his draft pedigree at this stage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

That's the important part, not that he was the second pick.

Other than you who cares about his draft pedigree at this stage?

No one.

 

But my point is he was drafted second for a reason (past performance and talent) and has given the Os no reason to doubt him moving ahead.  In fact considering his health issues after he was drafted?  I would say he has done exceptional.

He could be a locked in corner outfielder with plus power for years.  All star is his ceiling.   I would not trade that for 2 middle relievers who on the other hand do not have the pedigree that Heston does and who up until this year have had so so minor league careers.


Way too much risk that they regress imo.  Especially for having to give up on a very promising outfielder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OnlyOneOriole said:

No one.

 

But my point is he was drafted second for a reason (past performance and talent) and has given the Os no reason to doubt him moving ahead.  In fact considering his health issues after he was drafted?  I would say he has done exceptional.

He could be a locked in corner outfielder with plus power for years.  All star is his ceiling.   I would not trade that for 2 middle relievers who on the other hand do not have the pedigree that Heston does and who up until this year have had so so minor league careers.


Way too much risk that they regress imo.  Especially for having to give up on a very promising outfielder. 

So was Torkelson, he was picked ahead of Kjerstad.

His draft pedigree is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

We're not going to have room for all of these guys.  We're just not.  These wet dream posts of lineups 1-9 with all homegrown talent are exactly that.  

Second, you're acting like just because he's a top 100 prospect doesn't mean there's a chance that he won't make it.  I'll tip my cap to Elias and his crew, they've done a masterful job of developing talent, I can understand why people are so excited about all of our prospects but if we're going to have to trade one, I'm going to go with the one that has a lot of swing and miss in his game and isn't pegged as a great defender at either corner outfield spot.  He's also already 25 years old, barely has played at all in the majors....and some of that's not his fault, but it still is what it is.

With this franchise's ability to scout, draft and develop, I am not at all worried about trading Heston Kjerstad for bullpen help in a day and age where elite bullpens are game changers.  We're going to need a stout bullpen if/when we make it to the playoffs.  It's the one spot of this team I think that we should all be able to agree that needs an upgrade.

You're also neglecting to understand the fact that those relievers are under team control for awhile and have options which means there's more value to the Cleveland relievers that you're so quick to dismiss.  In your little scenario where you're talking about switching places and trading our middling relievers for someone like Kjerstad, you're acting like we'd be trying to trade Baumann and Suarez which is just intentionally obtuse on your part, you should be ashamed.  And with how Elias and his team have developed pitching and used analytics and pitch mixing,  I'm not too worried about the performance of either one coming back. 

If we were the 28th ranked minor league system and Kjerstad was our only guy we had to dream on, sure, I'd agree with you.  But it's not like Dylan Beavers isn't killing it in AA, he's 2 years younger and can play a corner outfield spot in Camden Yards.  

Blargh, blargh, blargh #2 overall pick blarg, blargh, blargh 

This is of course a pretty well reasoned post...but it comes undone a bit at the end.  Valuing players and trading value for value is what every good GM strives to do. And saying we have Beavers so we can trade Kjerstad is of course correct, but you absolutely don't want to devalue what you get in return for talent because you have more.

On the margins, sure.  But if you value your work, and it is clear that Elias does, and you believe these guys still have value, you don't just give em away because you have plenty.  I know that is not what you are really saying.  But the counter is also true.  I don't think keeping people to have 1-9 homegrown is a thing.  And I would rather trade Kjerstad for a bat that might push us over the edge than trade him for two middling relievers.  He is more valuable than that today even taking into account the wide range of outcomes he could have.

I believe we will make trades before the deadline.  I don't think Elias cares where the starting 9 comes from but I think he will look for true upgrades.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a tough call. The O’s need more help in the bullpen, both short term and long term, than they do in the outfield. But I think the state of affairs are well enough that you can really pick and choose your keepers. Kjerstad is a “nugget” (are we still using that term?) and the back of the bullpen, while a weak spot on an otherwise great team, isn’t really that bad off or anything. So you offer out the guys that obviously don’t have a place here, presently Norby, Stowers, and Beavers, and take what you can get for them…assuming you’re not giving them away of course. No reason to put Kjerstad in that mix if you dont have to…and they don’t have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

So was Torkelson, he was picked ahead of Kjerstad.

His draft pedigree is irrelevant.

See I disagree.   As a race horse trainer and owner who has trained 100s and 100s of horses and who has bought many yearlings and older horses, you 100% have to look at pedigree when buying a yearling, and you mix pedigree and past performance history when buying a horse that has already raced before.  That is really your only way to judge future performance.  I am not going to spend $50,000 on a horse with a sire like Amanda's Cadet, who was a poorly gaited horse I owned, but I would strongly consider it if the sire was Western Hanover.   Add in your ability to train and bring out the best in the horse and you make a judgement on what you think the horse will do in the future.

 

For example, I once traded the horse I mentioned above, Amanda's cadet, to another trainer for an On the Road Again sired horse.  On the Road Again is one of the greatest harness horses ever and he almost always had fast offspring.  But this horse that I traded for, the son of On the Road again named Jbs Expressway, was at the time 4 years old and had done nothing. Maybe had made $10,000 TOTAL up until then.   But man he was a beautifully built horse and I knew with his lineage that he had the potential to be really good. 

 

I traded the Cadet horse for JB, made a few changes, and he won his first 6 races for me and went on to make a ton of money for me.  He always had the pedigree, he just needed a change of scenery.  In Heston's case (btw there used to be a very fast horse called Heston Blue Chip), he has the pedigree and the past performance.   Trading him for these 2 relievers would be like trading a $100,000 stakes horse for two 6 year olds that up until this year had done nothing.  Sure they are faster right now but they never showed it before.

 

You just cannot do that.   If you are going to trade quality, or in the case with Heston 'potential quality' with a college and minor league history to back it up, you had better make damn sure you get proven quality back.    Those 2 relievers are not proven quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OnlyOneOriole said:

See I disagree.   As a race horse trainer and owner who has trained 100s and 100s of horses and who has bought many yearlings and older horses, you 100% have to look at pedigree when buying a yearling, and you mix pedigree and past performance history when buying a horse that has already raced before.  That is really your only way to judge future performance.  I am not going to spend $50,000 on a horse with a sire like Amanda's Cadet, who was a poorly gaited horse I owned, but I would strongly consider it if the sire was Western Hanover.   Add in your ability to train and bring out the best in the horse and you make a judgement on what you think the horse will do in the future.

 

For example, I once traded the horse I mentioned above, Amanda's cadet, to another trainer for an On the Road Again sired horse.  On the Road Again is one of the greatest harness horses ever and he almost always had fast offspring.  But this horse that I traded for, the son of On the Road again named Jbs Expressway, was at the time 4 years old and had done nothing. Maybe had made $10,000 TOTAL up until then.   But man he was a beautifully built horse and I knew with his lineage that he had the potential to be really good. 

 

I traded the Cadet horse for JB, made a few changes, and he won his first 6 races for me and went on to make a ton of money for me.  He always had the pedigree, he just needed a change of scenery.  In Heston's case (btw there used to be a very fast horse called Heston Blue Chip), he has the pedigree and the past performance.   Trading him for these 2 relievers would be like trading a $100,000 stakes horse for two 6 year olds that up until this year had done nothing.  Sure they are faster right now but they never showed it before.

 

You just cannot do that.   If you are going to trade quality, or in the case with Heston 'potential quality' with a college and minor league history to back it up, you had better make damn sure you get proven quality back.    Those 2 relievers are not proven quality.

Sorry, I fell asleep there, you were saying?

  • Haha 1
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

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...