Shelton

Yeah, I know. We all know. And I’m saying trading Skubal would be the most cowardly move a Detroit GM has ever made and nothing will matter after doing so. Eat Arby’s.

I’m saying that trading Skubal this year or losing Skubal next year doesn’t substantially affect whether or not free agent X will sign with us. And also it won’t really matter, because if we are the type of team to trade Skubal, we won’t be in on the free agents that have the luxury of saying no to us.

Pretty much co-sign all of this, except for your ongoing (and well-established at this point!) concern over how trading Skubal will affect the ability to attract FAs. Not that it isn’t true to some extent, but mostly because if this team’s analysis is in line with a decision to trade Skubal, that almost surely means that their intent is to run the franchise like a rich man’s Rays, and they are unlikely to ever be in the position to attract a FA anyway.

Everyone is smarter than Avila.

I think an easy adjustment that would tilt the balance slightly toward hitters is to actually require three batters for RP, and not let them out of that requirement by ending an inning. For SP you could have a nine batter minimum.

These rule changes can be evaluated under the Potter Stewart test for pornography. restricting the shift - seems fine to me three batter minimum - seems fine to me pitcher that bats can stay in the game as DH after he stops pitching - ehh, fine line in the outfield to regulate depth - no ****ing way placed runner on 2b in extras - yep pitch clock - oh hell yes larger bases - uh huh

I somewhat agree with this premise. But whoever replaces carpenter is also going to have reduced value assigned when playing DH or below average RF. Carpenter’s low-ish WAR was also due to missing a substantial chunk of time due to injury (and maybe that’s something to consider if it seems likely to recur). Carpenter or not, I think you are still keeping Jones because of how good his bat against lefties was. My main point of this was that I think there is a decent chance that we move on from McKinstry.

As far as I’m concerned, McGonigle is a lock for this team and will be the starting SS. Maybe Keith is your 3B and Vierling is the RF. Just operating from there and going with the standard 4 bench players, what is your bench? Rogers and Baez feel like locks. And for that matter Jones feels like a lock to pair with Kerry. So who is the last bench player? As of now we have McKinstry, Sweeney, Malloy, and Wenceel on the 40. There are also the kids that just got added but leave them out of it. Wenceel would seem to provide the most value given the rest of the roster. Of course, things will change from this point. If Bregman were added then Wenceel or Vierling probably get the boot, but you could also argue that Baez is the one to go. Our first half all stars were fun, but these guys stink.

Just like pitching, you can never have enough offense and defense

What do we think happened here? Did they **** up with their papaya rules by not allowing Lando to follow max into the pit because Oscar supposedly gets the right to pit first as the leader? What a ****show. I love it. Not even Ferrari would have ****ed that up.

I also don’t believe in the concept of a hard yearly budget, such that money given to a particular player means less available for other players. To me, it’s far more relevant to simply look at available roster spots and the ability to be flexible. This relates the Bregman thing, because adding him would result in a bit less flexibility, but lineup spot is there. That said, the reduced flexibility it is really only there for a year while we take advantage of a tidy contract for Torres. But the dollars ebb and flow. If Skubal comes back in 2027, it’s a yearly raise of about 15-20 million from what he’s going to get in 2026. But we also say goodbye to financial commitments to Jack, Torres, and Mize, which will probably end up totaling over 50 million. Some of those roster spots will need to be replaced by spending, but not all of them. Just relative to last year, we have cut Cobb, Maeda, all the guys we added at the deadline whose money we took on. I don’t see the sense in worrying about a hard budget number for a given year. I think it’s rare that the dollars spent become a zero sum exercise.

If you view McGonigle as incapable of handling SS even for a year, such that his only reasonable path to playing time is 3B, then I agree with your conclusion (from your perspective). I disagree on that fundamental issue, so to me mcgonigle and Bregman have nothing to do with each other. Last spring we went in wondering if Tork would even make the team, and Keith had been moved to 1B (without a solution at 3B yet), so I don’t think signing Torres is a huge factor either.

It’s also why I don’t think things like “Torres back” and “McGonigle close” and “7 years of Bregman made sense last year with Trey Sweeney penciled into SS but a year later with McGonigle penciled in there it no longer makes sense” carries a lot of weight. I think Bregman makes as much sense now as he did a year ago, which is quite a bit of sense. If there was any year to be happy with a bit of depth and stuffing the roster, at the cost of mere dollars, it’s this one. It’s not like we have a great answer in RF either if Kerry is your DH. Spending a year having colt split time between 2B, 1B, and DH is just fine. If you insist on defining a healthy game 7 lineup against a RHP in a world where Tork is good, Colt/Torres at DH/2B and Kerry in RF works for me.

I guess it’s hard to remember exactly how much rattling was going on prior to 2021. The Covid year didn’t help, but given how contentious that was, I’m not sure how much worse it could have been leading into 2021. Anyway, you could be right! If the owners want to take that position they are the ones in a better position to do so. In my view, the one thing that could hang things up is if the players were committed to pushing for a sweeping change in the way they are paid in the early stages of their career. There are 1200 players on 40 man rosters across baseball. How many truly benefit from a cap-less financial model? We got dudes like Gleyber out here wanting 5/100 and that’s not happening and it’s never going to happen. The riches aren’t going to be re-distributed via FA contracts. This reminds me of the classic argument where player X gets 20 million, and folks are like “we should have spent that money on players Y and Z” as if there is a hard budget that is being spent like a 13 year old at Claire’s. I don’t believe the people actually in charge of the money have the hard limits being cited by media. Evan Petzold keeps suggesting a 170 million “budget” for the tigers this year but that’s just a made up number, and ignores the rolling nature of year to year costs. I think the either/or decisions are almost entirely based on roster spots and marginal value relative to incumbent roster spots (and not the theoretical replacement player). You aren’t passing on a player you need because you already spent money on a different player you need.

Everyone said that five years ago, too. They played an entire season. Nothing really changed. They even agreed to later consider canceling the qualifying offer system in exchange for international draft. But players I think secretly like the QO so that was never going to happen.

There will not be an extended work stoppage. The thing players want (more money) can’t really be mandated by rules without completely upending the current system, and these people aren’t smart enough to agree on a system that would satisfy anyone. So at most they are getting an increase in league minimum and some minor adjustment to earning free agency. Owners want to keep making tons of money, which they already are. They can all afford to spend big if they want to, so all a cap does is help the richest teams make higher profits. But no one wants to lose a season. there just is not enough to gain for either party at this point.

I think schools at the “top” of their conferences aren’t actually under the illusion that they are a contender just because they are at the top though. I think we might be surprised what fans/schools will tolerate. But I think it’s incredibly hard to know for sure unless you do it. Speaking only for myself, but I have become incredibly disinterested in college football. I don’t think it’s because of NIL or greed or whatever. I just find the games so boring now, and I think it’s mostly because there only a couple per year worth caring about for your team. Since when did it become necessary to pay 12 games and judge success by only losing once? It’s not fun or interesting to have close to 10 games already decided before the season even starts. I think the big matchups interest people because the teams are both good, not because they both happen to have gone 8-0 or 7-1 against scrubs. I would love to see them try to create a 14 team super league and play a 13 week round robin and then have a small playoff at the end. Maybe we would even get an interesting matchup that kicks off before the sun goes down.

The team cannot trade him until June 15 without his consent, which is the standard for all free agents. The QO is not like an extension, which wouldn’t necessarily include that protection.

I don’t think we need everyone to get it, but I think if you pay enough attention to baseball stats and have heard of WAR, and care enough about it to pay a modicum of attention to it and discuss it, you aren’t the person making that claim at the end of your post. That person should be left alone, and possibly shunned.

Yeah, that’s fair. It’s such a mushy stat that I feel like getting down to tenths (or runs) it actually too many significant digits! Give me the integers for this type of thing. There is enough noise in performance anyway, it’s just fine. It doesn’t matter if Skubal is 7.2 war or 6.7 war. We get it.

Sure, but you could also just multiply by 10 if you want runs. Wins feels more user friendly and tells a better story for what is already a shorthand stat. It’s easy to point to McKinstry and his 1 war and Bregman and his 4 war and consider the value of adding three wins all things being equal. Wins may be a team stat at the end of the year but it’s a team made up of interchangeable pieces, and we don’t care too much what a team’s run difference is at the end of the the year if the team has the necessary number of wins (even if they are intertwined).

So, I couldn’t help but dig around a bit last night following the earlier discussion, and I saw something that said basically “we have to assign something” so they kind of settled on a poor 1B. The actual number is scaled to the number of games spent at DH (possibly even down to innings), so playing 130 games gives a reduced negative value relative to guy that played 150.

Park factors?

I could definitely be wrong. Going off memory and what I’m remembering could be related to something else entirely.

It’s been a long time since I dug into the background of how these adjustments came to be, and that’s probably because it makes enough intuitive sense regarding giving more value to the guys that play the tougher positions, that I stopped caring about the nitty gritty. BUT, I seem to recall that the positional adjustment run value isn’t actually about fielding at all, but about the average/typical/replacement (whatever) “offensive” performance that comes from each position. It is assumed you put your players into the defensive positions to optimize your offensive/defensive lineup. So, over time, we know what an average person playing shortstop can produce offensively. And we know what an average first baseman can produce offensively. Etc. So, it isn’t a defensive performance adjustment in the form of plays made or runs saved. It is a “positional” adjustment based on the expected offense you get from the different positions.