Photo

Jean Pinto


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#21 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,587 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 04 August 2021 - 01:27 PM

Iglesias is a guy who was available to the whole league before 2020 and signed for 1/$3M with a club option. For 2019 he signed a minor league contract (made $2.5M in the majors). Those give us some indication of his value around the league, and it's not very high. Those aren't the type of guys that get you much of anything if you're trading them. Maybe a back of top 30 guy? Well Stallings is 26th per fangraphs. 

 

Could his value have gone up due to 2020? Maybe, it was the best hitting "year" of his career. But it was also only 150 PAs, with a BABIP .100 above his career average. And he was hurt most of the time. I doubt 2020 moved the needle much, I would think most teams would see it as an obvious outlier and expect 2021 to be closer to his normal levels (which has happened). His normal levels that are valued by the league at around 1/$3M.

Everything you said is true, but IMO there is one more thing to consider, and that is, is the return for the player you are trading  as much or more than he is worth to you?   My issue with at least some of Elias's trades, is the answer to me is no.   The real value in some of these trades seems to be cutting the payroll.  I think the value of the Iglesias deal on the face of it seems to be, that they were able to free up money.   

Now if Pinto or Stallings turns out to be a key piece, than Elias wins the deal 


@mikeghg

#22 BSLBobPhelan

BSLBobPhelan

    BSL Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 12,986 posts
  • LocationBel Air, MD

Posted 04 August 2021 - 01:27 PM

Btw very good evaluation on Pinto by Jeremy except he’s also added a very good change up that tunnels well with the fastball and slider as well.
  • Mike B likes this

#23 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,413 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 04 August 2021 - 02:49 PM

Every word in this post applies to both criticizing the Iglesias trade and applauding the Castro & Givens trades.


It doesn't that much though. What I said in my next post is the key difference. People cared more about keeping Iglesias than those guys and people overrated his value where people knew Castro didn't have much value and Givens was a much easier player to gauge his trade value. So we didn't end up with the his value is higher than what proved out in the marketplace because I said so argument.

#24 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,413 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 04 August 2021 - 03:03 PM

Iglesias is a guy who was available to the whole league before 2020 and signed for 1/$3M with a club option. For 2019 he signed a minor league contract (made $2.5M in the majors). Those give us some indication of his value around the league, and it's not very high. Those aren't the type of guys that get you much of anything if you're trading them. Maybe a back of top 30 guy? Well Stallings is 26th per fangraphs.

Could his value have gone up due to 2020? Maybe, it was the best hitting "year" of his career. But it was also only 150 PAs, with a BABIP .100 above his career average. And he was hurt most of the time. I doubt 2020 moved the needle much, I would think most teams would see it as an obvious outlier and expect 2021 to be closer to his normal levels (which has happened). His normal levels that are valued by the league at around 1/$3M.


Good post.

The only reason for hope for his value to to reach what some thought it to be was if teams bought into an incredible aberration of a small sample size season. The O's were able to sign an adequate replacement for less money than Jose makes, which strongly suggests that his value should have been minimal unless teams bought into what I mentioned above.

#25 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,413 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 04 August 2021 - 03:11 PM

Every word in this post applies to both criticizing the Iglesias trade and applauding the Castro & Givens trades.

 

Also, I'm really not sure why you think this point favors you. 

 

That is showing that I am being consistent while you and others that were happy with those trades yet mad about this trade were not. 

 

If Elias trades a player with questionable at best value and we don't get reporting on what was available, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt both in that he did his due diligence (meaning he pretty much got the value that he could have gotten) as well as with talent evaluation for players that I (we) don't know much about. I don't know of anything about him that would lead me not to give the benefit of the doubt in that scenario. Again, if it's a bigger trade where we get good reporting on what's available and there's players coming back that we have more info on, then it's much more fair game to critique imo. It's also fair to say you would rather just hold onto the player than trade him for a minimal package, which you have, but in this case the results so far are not in your favor. It is not fair imo to say he should have gotten more value than the market dictated just because you think the player had more value.


  • makoman likes this

#26 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,576 posts

Posted 04 August 2021 - 03:33 PM

That is showing that I am being consistent while you and others that were happy with those trades yet mad about this trade were not. 

 

 

It is inconsistent to say that we CAN reasonably applaud a trade as being a good deal by Elias when we perceive that he has gotten more back than the value of the player (either in trade or to the team) but we CANNOT reasonably criticize a deal as being a bad deal by Elias when we perceive that he has gotten back less than the value of the player because in that case our assumptions are proven wrong by the return.  That's a circular definition.

 

If the return defines the player's value, then there are no good trades nor bad trades, and every trade is simply fair and equal.

 

If you want to say my opinions of the value of Iglesias or Stallings or Pinto were wrong, that's fine.  I'm confident in my opinions, but they're just opinions and I'm willing to concede that my view of the prospects were based on minimal information so are prone to larger margins of error.  My opinion of Iglesias and his trade value last offseason is pretty firm.  We didn't get what I would've wanted in order to deal him and I don't think he's someone we had to deal for whatever the best offer was even if we didn't think it was enough (which was the case for someone like Galvis recently).  Just like if we had dealt Mancini for two guys at the back end of our top-20 I'd have felt that wasn't enough to justify dealing him.  But you can't say that the trade of Iglesias for those guys proves that this was what his value was.  At least you can't do that and then also ever criticize or congratulate any other trade.  I think that's inconsistent.



#27 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,413 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 04 August 2021 - 04:04 PM

It is inconsistent to say that we CAN reasonably applaud a trade as being a good deal by Elias when we perceive that he has gotten more back than the value of the player (either in trade or to the team) but we CANNOT reasonably criticize a deal as being a bad deal by Elias when we perceive that he has gotten back less than the value of the player because in that case our assumptions are proven wrong by the return. That's a circular definition.

If the return defines the player's value, then there are no good trades nor bad trades, and every trade is simply fair and equal.

If you want to say my opinions of the value of Iglesias or Stallings or Pinto were wrong, that's fine. I'm confident in my opinions, but they're just opinions and I'm willing to concede that my view of the prospects were based on minimal information so are prone to larger margins of error. My opinion of Iglesias and his trade value last offseason is pretty firm. We didn't get what I would've wanted in order to deal him and I don't think he's someone we had to deal for whatever the best offer was even if we didn't think it was enough (which was the case for someone like Galvis recently). Just like if we had dealt Mancini for two guys at the back end of our top-20 I'd have felt that wasn't enough to justify dealing him. But you can't say that the trade of Iglesias for those guys proves that this was what his value was. At least you can't do that and then also ever criticize or congratulate any other trade. I think that's inconsistent.


Well it's a good thing I didn't do what you're talking about at the top or say that's what I was doing in this thread.

As far as the other thing you're saying I'm not being inconsistent on (at the end of your post), well I think I've clearly not said what you're saying I have. I didn't said it proves his trade value was what we got. I did say the trade is the best piece of evidence we have by far as to his trade value at the time. That's unequivocally true. I've also said multiple times that in trades where we get reporting on what else was available and/or have more info on the players involved, it's way more fair to critique. Your Mancini example would in all likelihood qualify. The argument for holding onto him also has far more merit. I've also expanded on all that in ways which refute your framing of my position, but I'll let my past posts speak for themselves rather than further rehashing.

I'll close by saying that I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around you of all people being so firm on the value you thought Iglesias without having having proper evidence to support it, and then still so firm after we became privy to what is by far the best piece of evidence we have on this, and it is in opposition of your position. That's starting with a theory and then sticking with it despite the experiments not supporting it.

#28 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,009 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 06 August 2021 - 05:12 PM

The success or failure of Jean Pinto isn't evidence of anything, other than, good for Jean Pinto.

 

Mackus has stated multiple times that it's his opinion based on how he formulates value.  I happen to disagree with his assessment and described a similar trade with the Angels (here, post #24).

 

I had an opinion more in line with where Mackus is here on the Cashner trade.  I would have expected something similar to the Iglesias trade in the Cashner deal.  Many people (everyone?) disagreed.  So what.

 

Jean Pinto's performance has nothing to do with the evaluation of the trade at the time.  He's still just as likely to be nothing, so what.  Likewise, if Elio Prado becomes something, so what.

 

Unless you KNOW that a kid is going to be something, that's the only time you toss return and get the player.  If you KNEW Tatis Jr would become what he has, you never worry about the second piece.  Same for the silly rhetoric 2 years after the Davis/Uehara trade where MacPhail wanted to explain about getting the 2M.  If you knew he would become that, you don't worry about the fringy stuff, just add the impact All-Star.

 

I know people want to point to a handful of Angels pitchers that have done well since their respective trades, but if we're actually that good at identifying Talent from well-down-the-list (outside the top20) in other Organizations ....why would you ever need to 'rebuild'?....because you can get those guys in many simple ways all day long every year. ...just go add all of the off-the-radar guys and develop them to become top100 impact-type players for you.

 

Also, there is no value in the Igesias versus Galvis discussion.  You were terrible both years, there's no value in incremental value when the results are similarly terrible.



#29 BSLBobPhelan

BSLBobPhelan

    BSL Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 12,986 posts
  • LocationBel Air, MD

Posted 04 September 2021 - 09:56 PM

6 IP, 4 H, 1 ER, 1 BB, 11 K tonight. 81 pitches, kid works fast and throws strikes. 1.96 ERA.

#30 BSLBobPhelan

BSLBobPhelan

    BSL Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 12,986 posts
  • LocationBel Air, MD

Posted 21 September 2021 - 02:38 PM

A: 1-1, 2.51 ERA, 46.2 IP, 29 H, 13 BB, 56 K

 

2.75 FIP

3.29 xFIP

31.1% strikeout rate

7.2% walk rate

 

FCL: 1-1, 1.80 ERA, 20 IP, 11 H, 4 BB, 28 K

 

3.40 FIP

2.86 xFIP

36.8% strikeout rate

5.3% walk rate






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=  width=