...and he will watch... it... fly!
- Joined: Oct 4, 2019
- Last Login: Oct 18, 2021, 6:02pm EDT
- Posts: 2
- Comments: 19
Share this profile
They would maybe give us Biggio...
Seems like they need a 3B and Chapman’s defense would add to their team nicely. Their lineup is already stacked, so he would only need to improve his hitting to like a .250 average to be a great contributor batting 5th or 6th. The Blue Jays’ scouts might also feel trading for Chappy now as a buy low has great potential value, they just experienced a similar boon with Marcus Semien, and they might be confident they can similarly turn Chapman’s bat into star caliber.
I just picture him in pinstripes too easily
I have always thought he looks the part of a Yankee. I think they will move DJ to first base and Gleyber to second, not sure if they see Urshela as a stopgap shortstop to their advancing prospects or not but Chapman or Olson would be a fit here, maybe alongside Manaea too.
Comment 1 reply
Comment 1 reply, 1 rec
So many injuries!
The Padres loaded up on pitchers but they seemingly all got hurt. Manaea would add stability and his timeline of control would allow the Padres flexibility to either extend or move on depending on the futures of their other starters.
Comment 1 reply, 1 rec
Nice to be a lefty in Yankee Stadium
I think Manaea being a lefty would provide the appeal of less homers allowed to lefty hitters towards that short right field. I could also see them going for both Chapman and Manaea together…
Comment 1 reply
The Cardinals seem to like gathering numerous pitchers of Manaea’s caliber more than true aces. Their staff was very old and injured this year, so he would provide valuable innings with a good expected level of performance. The Cardinals also should have no problem extending him for a few more years should they decide they want to…
Comment 1 reply
Chris Townsend always says...
Prospects are suspects until they prove otherwise. Getting a package headlined by a player that has #3 upside is much different than getting a #3 starter. I think the notion of a #3 starter also is used mainly to imply you are not getting one of the elite stuff guys, which would indeed be an unrealistic haul for Manaea. However, Sean Manaea is better than most pitching prospects turn out to be, regardless of their pedigree, and there should be (a) team(s) looking to win now that would exchange someone with a Manaea-like ceiling and one or two other decent prospects as a means of consolidating the cumilative risk value of young and unproven players into a pitcher that team is confident will increase their chances in the immediate forthcoming season of a potentially fleeting contention window.
Comment 1 rec
I think his good eye stats are misleading
He had so many strikeouts that were 0-2 92 mph four seamers right down the middle with no break or movement even that I am guessing opposing scouting reports said to not bother giving him pitches outside and allow him back in the count. If he had proven an ability to protect the zone, I imagine he would have gotten more two strike junk and chased it at a higher rate, leaving his chase statistics more average than great.
Comment 1 reply, 1 rec
I think the Rays are questionable for Olson because some high payroll team will want to extend him once they trade for him, making them willing to give up more in the trade. Thinking Dodgers, Yankees, Mets.
As for Chapman, I can picture him as a Yankee way too well, and Manaea would be good at Yankee stadium too because it would theoretically be harder for power lefties to find the short fence in RF lefty-on-lefty.
Finally, Bassitt is a good fit for basically any contender, I think the Rays line up well here as they are willing to trade prospects and while their pitching usage has proven successful, they also might want a guy like Bassitt who is a more traditional starter.
Writing this comment has made me want to make my own post similar to yours now…
How to mitigate carried players
My sense of how the Rays do it is using incredible levels of detail in their decisions. I admit I don’t follow their daily lineups enough to know for sure, but I get the sense they make way more nuanced decisions than the classic lefty or righty starting pitcher stack. Things like types and locations of the pitches the opposing starter utilizes are incorporated, certainly along with stuff I could never even think of. Together, this allows the 12-15 hitters getting significant chances over the course of the season the most amount of opportunities to hit in situations where they will succeed at an above average rate. Furthermore, the coaching and development of the hitters allows them to have an approach to their plate appearances that tailors well to the opposition. Every team has hitting strategy and lineup selection processes no doubt, but it is clear that some (like Tampa) go about it in a way that allows every bit of talent their hitters have to be made useful in the lineup, a requirement for a team operating on a low budget. A benefit of this maximization of their talent allows the Rays to consistently turn players they acquire cheaply into "better" players than the league viewed them when Tampa acquired them.
As it relates to our A’s, I would like to see our hitters succeed in specific areas repeatedly over the course of the season. For instance, someone like Ramon Laureano might be a .250-.270 hitter over 150 starts and 600 PA in CF, but on the Rays I could see him being a .280-.300 hitter but in maybe 400 PA, with the remaining 200 PA going to someone who can hit .280-.300 against the type of pitching Laureano struggles against. The guy taking those 200 PA might be a .220 hitter if given a full season of 600 PA facing whoever happens to be pitching that day, but good team building would allow him to only come to the plate in his matchups of strength. I feel like the A’s have done decently well at finding players we can afford or develop that can do well for 300-400 plate appearances, but we have often lacked productive players to fill in the gaps. The result is that either the starter goes from 300-400 matchups of strength to 500-600 matchups of anyone, OR someone who does not succeed in situations where the starter fails gets 300 PA anyway and predictably looks like a bad platoon partner.
What I wonder...
It seems like only evaluating after the season gives an incomplete picture of how a lineup’s individual and cumulative WRC+ values changed throughout the season. I am by no means suggesting DGreen, the Fangraphs writer, or anyone should have done this instead, but I would like to see the plate appearances given to hitters who were under 100 WRC+ AT THE TIME of their selection in that day’s lineup.
This would remove the all-or-nothing inclusion of players in the 90-100 range. For example, I bet Lowrie and Murphy had plenty of days where they went into the game over 100 and plenty of games just under. Giving them chances at the dish when they are at 102, 104, 107 is perfectly acceptable under the outline of this post and subsequent article, so their end total of 400+ plate appearances should not count entirely against them just because they end up at 100, 97, etc.
Additionally, I feel like it would provide some insight into WHY players who we can now say statistically did not cut it over a full season were given chances during the season, besides of course contract, alternatives, defense, injuries. Again, this removes the split between entirely above average or entirely below. For instance, someone who has an All-Star first half probably stays in the lineup for most of the second half, even though many hitters hit .300 with 20 homers before the break and .220 with 8 homers after. A really bad slump could end someone at say 94 WRC+, but in reality they spent 140 games over 100.
Really great Fanpost, would love to discuss this and similar topics more this offseason.
Comment 1 reply
Agree regarding LAD
That line of logic is why I think they could enter an Olson auction. Nail down 1B with an offensive and defensive stud, no worries about extension cost. Additionally, the Dodgers love to make larger trades and the A’s have a plethora of players that could be added in to make a real blockbuster similar to what the Dodgers have done in the past. Do the Dodgers want Chapman, Laureano, Bassitt, Manaea? Any one of those could be gotten along with Olson if the A’s like the package presented.
Thank you for commenting!
The Dodgers are a team that might get in on our sweepstakes because they can, not because they need to. I think long term they have 1B and 3B open, as Muncy and Turner will not hold those spots exclusively for much longer and the DH could be near. For Olson more than Chapman, I can imagine the Dodgers thinking the chance to land a top tier 1B with great defense and sign him for 10 years, crossing off that position forever, is too good to be outbid on.
As for the Yankees, I think DJ stays at 1B and Torres stays at 2B and they go for a SS. Trevor Story? In general, I feel like Chapman has Yankee written all over him and that is where he will eventually end up.
I should have made it more clear that I REALLY DON’T want this to happen, was just a thought that passed through my head when thinking about who is going to want our stud players for their contending teams. I agree with everything you have said regarding fit. I did mention that in the scenario I put forward the Dodgers are sending money paying down his arb salary- I believe they would see this as a middle ground between a non-tender (too hard to swallow for a rich team and a player that talented) and a trade with his projected salary (what of value would someone offer to take on 16 mil?). For the A’s, Bellinger would be a buy low rebound candidate capable of playing OF or 1B, and they could always turn around and trade him if he has a good first half. That is the proposed logic, but I wouldn’t be excited by this move.