Dominikk85

I think both has its advantages. Really developing tools is very important and if you are a "gamer" and throw 85 that is not getting you very far. But I also some believe learning to win and learning the game is important and since kids nowadays focus on metrics like 60 yards and exit velo since age 12 there are many kids with good tools who don't know how to play. Probably needs both

I think the future will show this. There is thinking in the game that less games and more training complimented with semi game action like live ABs is a more efficient way to develope players. My thinking is that this is true for very raw players as you can work more specifically on weaknesses (mechanics, physical, approach) by for example telling a pitcher to attack a weakness of a hitter so he gets more practice in that but the more advanced a prospect is the more he needs game action as there is only so much you can improve by training and some stuff can't really be replicated in sim games, especially the mental aspect. Also sim games have the disadvantage of facing the same pitchers and hitters all the time and maybe pitchers not throwing you inside as they don't want to hurt someone. On the other hand for a more raw prospect it can be great to do a live AB, then you take him to video, analyze a weakness, do a few mechanics drills and then practice what you just learned in another couple live at bats. I think we won't have a real answer until in a couple years. Also we will see how alternate site prospects are doing this season.

First basemen are overpaid in arbitration. Extending him now could make his arb years cheaper in exchange for certainty for him plus maybe you get an additional year. This would also increase his trade value if you want to trade him towards the end of the window because trade value of first basemen in the final two arb years is low due to their high arb salary.

You can still trade for a backup in season. The prospect cost might be marginally higher but still it won't be super high, I don't think you need to part with any of the top5 to get one.

Btw I wonder how sustainable the uptick in quintana's k rate is. His era wasn't great last year but FIP and k/9 were career bests. His contact rate also was among the lowest in his career so maybe it was not a total fluke.

I do think they should move older non high level pieces (22+ or 4+ years of minor league time). A 40 to 45 FV with 4 years of MILB time is unlikely to turn into the next tatis and I rather get value now than losing him to rule 5 next winter. Yeah you don't want to lose all depth but rule 5 means huge value loss and teams like the yankees and rays do trade away lots of those pieces a year before they reach that point and thus get value. That looks bad in farm system rankings but really once players reach their last milb year the clock is ticking, either they are ready by then or their value will plummet. So once those college players are like 24 and international or HS players are around 22 you need to make a decision.

I would give Collins a Shot. Yeah he hasn't looked good on either end but he only has 120 ABs at the mlb level that is absolutely nothing (for reference Mike trout had a 87 wrc+ his first 135 PAs (no comparison here, I know trout was 18 and had less than 500 PAs above A ball, just to show that sub 300 PAs means nothing) and I do still believe he can be a 110 wRC+ hitter against RHP even if it is a non traditional line (low BA, 20-25 homers, lot of K, tons of walks). I still believe it was a huge mistake to not give Collins 400+ PAs in 2019 when the team was still playing for nothing. They should just have just let him hit everyday and say sink or swim, that way we already would have known him now. I would give him the lefty platoon at DH till may (when vaughn should be up) and after that give him backup catcher.

Hendriks would bei great but i would bei fine with bradley too. Get hendricks or archie bradley, a 4th starter and then the team is pretty much complete.

Yeah, his company was also sentenced for a billion dollar fine for fraud and cohen somehow managed to not be prosecuted personally. He seems to be a finance criminal who probably should be in jail for insider trading and other stuff.

Not sure that is true though. They used to teach finish across, bend forward and scrape the ground in pitching but nowadays many good pitchers stay upright and recoil in the follow through.

But you will also be hard pressed to find someone who maintains an era half a run worse than his FIP. Musgrove has thrown less than 500 innings in his career. There are systemic fip under and overperformers but they are rather rare and you can't say that with certainty until you have 1000+ innings. I would put way more stock into his FIP and k-bb rate than into era over an arbitrary amount of starts. In fact the highest negative FIP to era gap among active starters with 1000+ innings is Strasburg at .22. This likely means Musgroves .4 FIP to era gap is likely an artifact due to sample size and his FIP is a lot more predictive than his era.

Longenhagen said he completely discards information on prospects by teams as propaganda especially if those teams had a non public summer camp.

Yeah but 100m Is a nice payday already and he is still 3 years away from free agency and could get hurt. He might want to take the 100m guaranteed in the current economical climate plus at age 32 he could still get another good contract. Obviously if everything goes well it would be better to test free agency and get 250m but for this to happen he needs health and performance. He might prefer 100m guaranteed with a chance to make another 60m or so later. That way he loses 90m compared to best case but also makes 90+ m more compared to worst case.

Almost every pitcher has an injury history though. I mean just looking at the sox giolito, cease, kopech and lynn all had TJ. Which team doesn't have at least two starters who had TJ?

5.5 runs would bei by far the worst pitcher in Baseball. So who would You get then?

The question is what are the alternatives? With giolito, lynn, keuchel and cease plus kopech on an innings limit the sox need at least one starter and might need another one in case of injury. So the options are free agents bauer, paxton, quintana and tanaka and on the trade market musgrove, maybe someone from the cubs (hendricks?) And who else is there?

Isnt clevinger out for the year? But otherwise they certainly have a good rotation and really any rotation is volatile and injury prone, pitchers just get hurt, let the yankees lose cole or the sox lose giolito and they miss the playoffs too (unless they make a big trade including two of their top 4 prospects). This could happen to the padres but to any other team too.

I think the Sox could have gotten it done but it probably would have been more costly. Cubs are really collecting shortstops and the sox have mostly DHs and pitchers in their system. Still I doubt cubs would not have said no to cease and madrigal or so but that would have been a big overpay.

Offer giolito like 7/100 Offer vaughn something like the Evan white deal. Obviously if you leave him down 3 weeks he is 30 anyway at free agency and not super expensive to extend then but first basemen tend to get overpaid in arbitration because their traditional numbers are better than their war.

The padres really used the bad market for sellers. Yeah they gave up a lot of good talent but they really only gave up one of their top6 prospects to get two top pitchers. Sure one of the young guys they gave up could be the next tatis but they didn't give up a package like the sox got for sale or even just quintana but they really gave up one 60fv and a couple 40s to 45s albeit young ones with upside. This is really a good market to buy in trades because teams are willing to sell low to get rid of salary. Maybe the sox can also spin a trade without giving up madrigal, vaughn, kopech and crochet when they make a more quantity based package.

Davies was very good but he also is unlikely to sustain that, projections have Him at a high 4s era. I Think that is too pessimistic and he is a decent 5 starter but still era+ is not super telling in 60 games.

The Sox could have gotten darvish but darvish is 34 and has 3 years and like 60 mil left on his contract, that is some risk. Still a good get by the padres, also carratini who is a solid backup. Padres gave up a lot of depth in trades in the last 12 months but except for patino they kept the real top guys like Gore, campusamo and abrams. The system is thinner now of course but they got a stacked roster now and still some top prospects. The Sox are in a great position too though and the lynn trade really helped with that.

I think he would be. Obviously not a super cheap one (like 5/45 or so) but at a decent price he should want to do it because he still has some years to go to free agency and could get hurt. Offer him some semi Team friendly extension like 7/110 and he might be willing to take it

To be fair his fWAR is quite a bit higher,last 3 years 2.2, 3.3 and 1 (2.7 over full season). That is a 2.7 average over the last 3 seasons. It depends on how much you believe his fip underperformance is systemic (last 3 years 4.23 era and 3.7 fip). There is probably some skill involved but the pirates also were a pretty bad team defensively so that might have inflated his era a little too compared to his fip.

Not sure about that. Don't forget that darvish was very good but he also is 34 and has lots of years and millions left on the contract, that contract has big time negative surplus value. Cubs might be pretty happy to unload that contract because even if darvish is good next year his last years could get really ugly.