Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 80 of 115 FirstFirst ... 3070787980818290 ... LastLast
Results 1,186 to 1,200 of 1713
  1. #1186
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,901

    2020 MLB Thread (Covid shutdown Edition)

    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    You're right, but I was talking realistic "best case" scenarios. Wells' best case is a Schwarber. A 4 win guy at a corner spot or 1b who hits well. Calabrese is a 4-5 fWAR CF'er who relies on his athleticism. I'd suggest their ceilings are pretty similar. Yes, CF is more rare, but fWAR is going to take that into account with positional adjustments, and similarly, Wells is going to have a leg up in the "safe" compartment considering he's more advanced and has already proven he can hit with wood.

    Certainly you could get a platoon guy from Wells. Or you could get a defensive replacement who can't hit from Calabrese. Or a hundred other things for each. Just simply saying if we're comparing the "best case" for either (in a realistic sense. Clearly the best case for any player is to be a HoF'er), I think they're fairly in line.

    I'm just trying to say that the risk/reward with Calabrese, to me, it's not worth it. His reward just doesn't outweigh the risk of taking him at 16 in almost any scenario for me. Bitsko, certainly comes with a ton of risk as a HS pitcher, but his realistic best case scenario is better than that of Calabrese, for example. It offsets the high pick. At least for me.

    I see what Calabrese can be. He's just not a guy I'm taking with 16 in this draft. He's not my preference in a mid first round bat. Like I said, he's the kind of guy I'd be incredibly happy with in almost any 2nd round, or as a late-late-1st. But if you're drafting mid-1st, he's not my type of pick.
    I get what your saying. I just donít totally agree. I think the best case for a CF with plus defense and plus plus running in todays game is better than the best case from a corner guy without defensive value and who doesnít project to have an elite elite bat. If we are just taking best case, I want the 4-5 win CF over the 4-5 win 1b/LF.

    But I really want the 5+ win SP.

  2. #1187
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    56,276
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    I get what your saying. I just donít totally agree. I think the best case for a CF with plus defense and plus plus running in todays game is better than the best case from a corner guy without defensive value and who doesnít project to have an elite elite bat. If we are just taking best case, I want the 4-5 win CF over the 4-5 win 1b/LF.

    But I really want the 5+ win SP.
    Today's game, I guess, but today's game isn't tomorrow's game. Again, realistic best case scenario is that Calabrese is up in what...5-6 years? By age 22-23? I don't like drafting for today's game that much for a HS kid like Calabrese. In 5-6 years CF'ers could be abundant and power, like a few seasons ago, could be missing again. Or we get an automated strike zone and Wells' below average receiving becomes completely moot and he's a power bat catcher. Only point I'm making with that is...4 wins is 4 wins. I'd say what the small advantage I'd give a 4 win CF (even factoring in positional difference), is made up for things like Wells being less volatile with the bat (and with the DH probably coming shortly, gives him even more potential spots if the bat is good), and athletic players who are speed/defense just not having a very long shelf life. For me, the upsides are 6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other, with Wells getting a pretty good boost due to things like; we know he can hack it in a pretty good baseball conference and with wood bats in the Cape.

    But I am also fine with disagreeing here. More just finishing my explanation.

    I'd be firmly on board with a 5+ win SP too. Draft upside in the first. That's what I'm all about. It's why I won't keel over and die if it's Calabrese (I really don't think it will be, but that's just a guess. I don't think it's going to be my boy Wells, either, despite him having a "Schwarber"-y vibe himself, so there's that) but I'll be disappointed to a degree. The upside is fun, he's just not my kind of pick.
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 06-06-2020 at 11:37 PM.

  3. #1188
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,901
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    Today's game, I guess, but today's game isn't tomorrow's game. Again, realistic best case scenario is that Calabrese is up in what...5-6 years? By age 22-23? I don't like drafting for today's game that much for a HS kid like Calabrese. In 5-6 years CF'ers could be abundant and power, like a few seasons ago, could be missing again. Or we get an automated strike zone and Wells' below average receiving becomes completely moot and he's a power bat catcher. Only point I'm making with that is...4 wins is 4 wins. I'd say what the small advantage I'd give a 4 win CF (even factoring in positional difference), is made up for things like Wells being less volatile with the bat (and with the DH probably coming shortly, gives him even more potential spots if the bat is good), and athletic players who are speed/defense just not having a very long shelf life. For me, the upsides are 6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other, with Wells getting a pretty good boost due to things like; we know he can hack it in a pretty good baseball conference and with wood bats in the Cape.

    But I am also fine with disagreeing here. More just finishing my explanation.

    I'd be firmly on board with a 5+ win SP too. Draft upside in the first. That's what I'm all about. It's why I won't keel over and die if it's Calabrese (I really don't think it will be, but that's just a guess. I don't think it's going to be my boy Wells, either, despite him having a "Schwarber"-y vibe himself, so there's that) but I'll be disappointed to a degree. The upside is fun, he's just not my kind of pick.
    Iíd be good with the argument that heís higher risk than someone like Wells. I think thatís almost certainly true. I just disagree that the upside is lower.

  4. #1189
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    56,276
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Iíd be good with the argument that heís higher risk than someone like Wells. I think thatís almost certainly true. I just disagree that the upside is lower.
    I don't think his upside is lower. As I said before...upside wise...they're 6 in one hand and half a dozen for me. I think they're both, realistically about 4 win guys at their 95%. Maybe a slight edge to Calabrese for peak, Wells' bat might allow him to be useful longer.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

  5. #1190
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    3,367
    Iíve missed good baseball discussions. Draft talk is a lot of fun to me and something I plan to follow more closely in the future. Itís fun to know a little bit about potential options coming up, although last year, nobody was even talking about Jensen when we took him with our 1st pick. Obviously Theo knew what he wanted, which was a high velocity starter who would be a project. Iím excited to see the path we take this year. It seems to be some uncertainty of which direction we go this year. Last year we were pretty certain it was going to be a pitching heavy draft for us starting with our 1st pick.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #1191
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malaga, Spain
    Posts
    1,732

  7. #1192
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,901

    2020 MLB Thread (Covid shutdown Edition)

    https://twitter.com/karlravechespn/s...242295310?s=21


    https://twitter.com/mikeaxisa/status...208679936?s=21

    Amazing that Ravech can present this like the owners are making major concessions. They arenít. The changes are relatively minor and to this point the players sound united in rejecting salary reductions beyond prorated pay.

  8. #1193
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    56,276
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    https://twitter.com/karlravechespn/s...242295310?s=21


    https://twitter.com/mikeaxisa/status...208679936?s=21

    Amazing that Ravech can present this like the owners are making major concessions. They arenít. The changes are relatively minor and to this point the players sound united in rejecting salary reductions beyond prorated pay.
    Yep. It's saying "let's play more games, at the same pay you were getting, so you make less per game, while we make more because there's more games". But it's all for the PR. For people who don't do that math, 76 games sounds like a concession to the average fan. Hell, reading it at first I was like "hmmm that sounds like movement!"

    I really don't think the owners care right now. It sounds like Manfred can bang a gavel and make the players play.

    https://twitter.com/ithrow88/status/1270009202149212160

    Dan Haren gets it. Also, I love Dan Haren's twitter.

    EDIT: Seems as though Axisa is a bit off. Seems like it's a ~4% salary increase for the players. But the owners are sapping 26 games out of that ~4% and all of the TV revenue from it.
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 06-08-2020 at 11:20 AM.

  9. #1194
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,901

    2020 MLB Thread (Covid shutdown Edition)

    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    Yep. It's saying "let's play more games, at the same pay you were getting, so you make less per game, while we make more because there's more games". But it's all for the PR. For people who don't do that math, 76 games sounds like a concession to the average fan. Hell, reading it at first I was like "hmmm that sounds like movement!"

    I really don't think the owners care right now. It sounds like Manfred can bang a gavel and make the players play.

    https://twitter.com/ithrow88/status/1270009202149212160

    Dan Haren gets it. Also, I love Dan Haren's twitter.
    I canít tell if the media members who are praising the owners efforts here (Like Ravech and Heyman) are just not thinking critically or if they know what they are doing but want to keep getting checks that they wouldnít get without support from the owners. Heyman works directly for the league on MLB Net, and Ravech works for one of the leagues biggest partners.

    Itís a slight increase in pay with a significant increase in work (75% of 76 games is 57 games pay), so you play an extra 26 games from the last owner proposal and you get paid for 7 of those 26 games. Weak.

    No draft pick compensation is fine, but I doubt it moves the needle on free agents this winter. Teams are going to be trying to recoup losses and avoid most free agents regardless of draft comp. Just pay the players the prorated salary because owners are going to screw them on future payrolls anyway to recoup any losses.
    Last edited by CP_414; 06-08-2020 at 11:23 AM.

  10. #1195
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    56,276
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    I canít tell if the media members who are praising the owners efforts here (Like Ravech and Heyman) are just not thinking critically or if they know what they are doing but want to keep getting checks that they wouldnít get without support from the owners. Heyman works directly for the league on MLB Net, and Ravech works for one of the leagues biggest partners.

    Itís a slight increase (75% of 76 games is 57 games pay), so you play an extra 26 games from the last owner proposal and you get paid for 7 of those 26 games. Weak.
    My guess is that they're not doing it on purpose in the sense of "let's protect ourselves" (I assume they're going to get paid either way), but more from an unconscious level. One it is a slight increase, 76 sounds so much more than 50 games (it's a 50% increase in games, essentially), and I think they're going to straddle a middle ground here of "they both need to make concessions" and this deal does mean they both make concessions (granted the players are far and away giving up more, but it still checks the boxes for "both").

    So what you have are guys who have interests on both sides (players/front offices/owners) who see movement, and they're going to praise it so they don't make too many waves, it seems like both sides are making concessions, and the numbers seem bigger. So you have a perfect storm for someone like Jon Heyman to say "hey, look at that! That's better!" In the end, I think they're wrong. I hope the players come back at a higher number. This is still very much in favor of the ownership and the players shouldn't sink this low yet.

  11. #1196
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    56,276
    What sucks is that ESPN is posting Ravich's opinion as fact. I just got an update on my phone "MLB owners submit a new proposal which significantly moves towards the players demands - Ravich".

    I'm sorry, but I didn't know a small 4% increase in overall pay for 50% more work is significant. I wouldn't accept that deal.

    The problem is the average joe just got that update like I did and will think the players are douchebags for not taking it, if/when they shoot it down. When I just don't agree with that opinion. They're not going to do the work to read up on anything as long as ESPN says it.

  12. #1197
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,901

    2020 MLB Thread (Covid shutdown Edition)

    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    My guess is that they're not doing it on purpose in the sense of "let's protect ourselves" (I assume they're going to get paid either way), but more from an unconscious level. One it is a slight increase, 76 sounds so much more than 50 games (it's a 50% increase in games, essentially), and I think they're going to straddle a middle ground here of "they both need to make concessions" and this deal does mean they both make concessions (granted the players are far and away giving up more, but it still checks the boxes for "both").

    So what you have are guys who have interests on both sides (players/front offices/owners) who see movement, and they're going to praise it so they don't make too many waves, it seems like both sides are making concessions, and the numbers seem bigger. So you have a perfect storm for someone like Jon Heyman to say "hey, look at that! That's better!" In the end, I think they're wrong. I hope the players come back at a higher number. This is still very much in favor of the ownership and the players shouldn't sink this low yet.
    I dunno. The media landscape isnít great. Heyman canít be making much from whatever blog heís writing for now without the mlb net job. Iím not sure who would pay Ravech if he wasnít on ESPN. He could probably get a local news job in a good market. Would either guy have the courage to bash the owners when the owners could pull Heyman off MLB net or request a replacement for Ravech? I doubt it. The most critical voices tend to come from people who arenít getting checks from the league. Fangraphs, the Athletic, Newspapers, blogs, etc. Even the former players who are working for the major media partners of the league have tried to ďboth sidesĒ the issue or even side with owners in the case of Teix and ARod. I think thereís a good chance it is on purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    What sucks is that ESPN is posting Ravich's opinion as fact. I just got an update on my phone "MLB owners submit a new proposal which significantly moves towards the players demands - Ravich".

    I'm sorry, but I didn't know a small 4% increase in overall pay for 50% more work is significant. I wouldn't accept that deal.

    The problem is the average joe just got that update like I did and will think the players are douchebags for not taking it, if/when they shoot it down. When I just don't agree with that opinion. They're not going to do the work to read up on anything as long as ESPN says it.

    Yep. I donít think thatís just carelessness.
    Last edited by CP_414; 06-08-2020 at 11:44 AM.

  13. #1198
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    56,276
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    I dunno. The media landscape isnít great. Heyman canít be making much from whatever blog heís writing for now without the mlb net job. Iím not sure who would pay Ravech if he wasnít on ESPN. He could probably get a local news job in a good market. Would either guy have the courage to bash the owners when the owners could pull Heyman off MLB net or request a replacement for Ravech? I doubt it. The most critical voices tend to come from people who arenít getting checks from the league. Fangraphs, the Athletic, Newspapers, blogs, etc. Even the former players who are working for the major media partners of the league have tried to ďboth sidesĒ the issue or even side with owners in the case of Teix and ARod. I think thereís a good chance it is on purpose.




    Yep. I donít think thatís just carelessness.
    I doubt either would have the balls to bash owners. But guys like Jeff Passan have had pretty critical articles published on ESPN and honestly, who's paying Passan without baseball? Axisa works for CBS on the baseball side and he's been critical.

    Truthfully, I dont think they'll bash guys because Heyman and Ravech are "middle straddlers" who don't want to piss off the two sides they work with. Which is why they're framing it this way. I don't get far into the idea that Karl Ravech is as much of a tool bag to make this way better so that ESPN will keep paying him, especially when it's believed that Manfred can basically force a season. I'd say Ravech is more protecting what he feels is "his relationship" with the owners and his idea that he's staying "neutral". He's not, but my guess is he believes he is.

  14. #1199
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    56,276
    https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/statu...19882185306118

    Jeff Passan (who I think has done a pretty bangup job here covering this stuff) breaks it down. The TL;DR version for all:

    Basically, the players make less guaranteed here, but could make more with the playoffs if there's more money coming in. Says that baseball will happen, but it's more and more likely that it's just a 48 game season with the pro-rated salaries that the owners demand. Which will follow with a grievance filed by the MLBPA.

    FWIW as well, Nightengale says the MLBPA feels this is a "step back" in negotiations.

  15. #1200
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,901

    2020 MLB Thread (Covid shutdown Edition)

    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    I doubt either would have the balls to bash owners. But guys like Jeff Passan have had pretty critical articles published on ESPN and honestly, who's paying Passan without baseball? Axisa works for CBS on the baseball side and he's been critical.

    Truthfully, I dont think they'll bash guys because Heyman and Ravech are "middle straddlers" who don't want to piss off the two sides they work with. Which is why they're framing it this way. I don't get far into the idea that Karl Ravech is as much of a tool bag to make this way better so that ESPN will keep paying him, especially when it's believed that Manfred can basically force a season. I'd say Ravech is more protecting what he feels is "his relationship" with the owners and his idea that he's staying "neutral". He's not, but my guess is he believes he is.
    Passan and Rosenthal are both pretty legit. Iím not sure Iíd consider CBS as a major partner of mlb.

Page 80 of 115 FirstFirst ... 3070787980818290 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •