Jump to content

Fowler Signs with Cubs


Chisoxfn

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 315
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 02:29 PM)
Just to note - by using the phrase "replacement level" you're indicating a stat that partially disagrees with your statement. Fangraphs clocked him at 2.7 WAR, which was exactly what he also put up in 2012 and 2013. B-R put him as worse than that I will also note - something I think is Fangraphs giving more of the credit for the terrible season to the defense and B-R saying the whole white sox pitching staff was weak last year (including Sale, FWIW).

 

 

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 02:40 PM)
The trick is...I kinda buy that, but at the same time there's information here. If Fangraphs is hanging too much on the defense, then that also means the other pitchers weren't as strong as fangraphs put them either. So, if you're going to say it's all on Samardzija and he's a below-replacement player, as is said there, then Sale was a 3.3 WAR pitcher by the same standard, no where near an ace level season.

 

I think reality remains somewhere in-between. Yes, he got rocked in August, but at the same time, if a guy is pitching for a team with a terrible offense, if he gives up 5 runs or 9 runs you lose either way. At the same time, he also got the team a fair number of wins in June and September and definitely helped keep them in the "we're still in this!!" mode that Hahn was in at the end of July last year.

I prefer Fangraphs WAR for pitchers over R/9 WAR in general, but the fact is Samardzija gave up all those runs. Fangraphs says he was probably somewhat unlucky, but that doesn't matter for 2015, he gave up the runs regardless. It means he'll probably be better in 2016, but that point is irrelevant when you're comparing to last year's production. His replacement doesn't have to produce an fWAR better than 2.7 to be an improvement over Samardzija last year. A pitcher could have the unluckiest season in the history of baseball, but that doesn't erase all the runs he gave up. Along the same lines, Greinke is likely to see some major regression in 2016, but that doesn't erase the results of what happened last year. So Samardzija maybe didn't fully "deserve" his 4.96 ERA last year, but when judging potential improvement over last season, the end result is all that matters, not the path the player took to get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 03:01 PM)
Yeah they can make him a QO. Same situation with Gordon this offseason.

Thanks. So then the lost pick is replenished and isn't that big a deal. Not sure why the O's reportedly drew such a line in the sand against the one year opt-out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Knackattack @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 02:43 PM)
I would imagine that if they trade a quality player like Coghlan for Aaron freakin Brooks they must have tried many other places and not found much interest.

Or they took the first deal they had. We have no idea if they even talked to the Sox

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 02:55 PM)
Correct. But then you either have him for 1 year giving up the draft pick, or disaster happens and you are on the hook for 3. If there was no draft pick tied to him, he would have no problem getting an opt out after 1 year.

 

Agreed. I'm not saying the opt out would have been a good idea. It's just the notion that he only wanted to play for the Cubs and nowhere else is a fairytale. He's still betting on himself to score a big payday in the future, which is why took the Cubs one year deal instead of the Orioles offer. It's similar to the guaranteed money Heyward "passed up".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 01:37 PM)
Agreed. I'm not saying the opt out would have been a good idea. It's just the notion that he only wanted to play for the Cubs and nowhere else is a fairytale. He's still betting on himself to score a big payday in the future, which is why took the Cubs one year deal instead of the Orioles offer. It's similar to the guaranteed money Heyward "passed up".

Wouldn't the Sox have had the shot to get the pick back in the following year (presuming they would be comfortable enough to make him a qualifying offer...albeit that means you are willing to give him a hefty pay raise over what you paid him in 16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 09:37 PM)
Agreed. I'm not saying the opt out would have been a good idea. It's just the notion that he only wanted to play for the Cubs and nowhere else is a fairytale. He's still betting on himself to score a big payday in the future, which is why took the Cubs one year deal instead of the Orioles offer. It's similar to the guaranteed money Heyward "passed up".

excellent thought process and i can't help but to agree.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 09:50 PM)
Wouldn't the Sox have had the shot to get the pick back in the following year (presuming they would be comfortable enough to make him a qualifying offer...albeit that means you are willing to give him a hefty pay raise over what you paid him in 16.

 

i am with you on the strategy of this kind of scenario, a 2 or 3 yrs with options after every yr. like this, it will fix a major hole in the OF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 03:50 PM)
Wouldn't the Sox have had the shot to get the pick back in the following year (presuming they would be comfortable enough to make him a qualifying offer...albeit that means you are willing to give him a hefty pay raise over what you paid him in 16.

 

They would have to be willing to offer him a chance at $16 million + for 2017.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 02:18 PM)
Why? He wanted to play for the Cubs

That's nice. Like I said, I don't really give a crap what the reason is. If you want to look at every free agent outfielder individually you can come up with a fine excuse on why said player didn't sign with the Sox but when you miss out on every single one there's a problem somewhere with how you're operating.

Edited by Rowand44
Link to comment
Share on other sites

fathom pointed this out before but Coghlan actually had a higher fWAR than Fowler last year. They're the same age too, and though projections aren't high on Coghlan for 2016, he also had a pretty good year in 2014, so it's not like last year was his only good year. That's why I'm in the camp over being more upset at losing out on him than Fowler, especially at that soft cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cubs have zero reason to help the Sox unless we seriously overpaid as

 

1) could make them look bad if he outperformed Fowler

 

2) the Cubs want to create a quasi-monopoly competing with us on media rights in 2019

 

3) any success we have is highly unlikely to force "spillover" customers to the Cubs since they're already maximizing ticket revenues

 

 

Who's willing to trade Adams for Coghlan?

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they still don't necessarily want to help us to earn a wild card, either.

 

I would imagine Hahn just wasn't willing to part with the player Hoyer asked for...and/or they targeted Brooks a long time before he ended up with the A's last year, kind of like the Nestor Molina/Santos deal.

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 06:26 PM)
But they still don't necessarily want to help us to earn a wild card, either.

 

I would imagine Hahn just wasn't willing to part with the player Hoyer asked for...and/or they targeted Brooks a long time before he ended up with the A's last year, kind of like the Nestor Molina/Santos deal.

Or maybe the White sox are just that content with their outfield. At this point that hypothesis is currently consistent with the available evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 05:40 PM)
Or maybe the White sox are just that content with their outfield. At this point that hypothesis is currently consistent with the available evidence.

 

And/or waiting for a deal that brings the the likes of Carl Crawford (since we're collecting these types now), Ethier or Austin Jackson yet only adds $7 million or less to the payroll, capping it at around $130 before Opening Day.

 

(Obviously Crawford would be less...ala Josh Hamilton.)

 

At any rate, if going with Avi and LaRoche does blow up, do you think JR blames Ventura, Hahn/KW or his own payroll limitations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 04:38 PM)
That's nice. Like I said, I don't really give a crap what the reason is. If you want to look at every free agent outfielder individually you can come up with a fine excuse on why said player didn't sign with the Sox but when you miss out on every single one there's a problem somewhere with how you're operating.

 

 

You can feel however you want. You are being irrational though and people shouldn't take you seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 06:50 PM)
At any rate, if going with Avi and LaRoche does blow up, do you think JR blames Ventura, Hahn/KW or his own payroll limitations?

I think with Robin not having been extended this year they have a real nice scapegoat situation set up. They may not call it that publicly but then they'll still be able to save their jobs for a year by telling the person making the decisions that 2017 will totally be their year! And replacing the manager doesn't even cost them anything.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...