166 replies to this topic

[Dr. FLK]

I'm a pretty big fan of this move.  I'll miss Valencia's bat off the bench.  He was huge for us last year.  But, I'm also skeptical he'll be able to repeat what he did at the same level of productivity.  In Lough, we basically have a cheaper, cost-controlled McLouth with better defense.  On a team with limited OF options, his versatility is also a huge plus.  All in all, a very nice move here.

[bnickle]

I don't think Urrutia will start the season on the 25 man roster. I doubt Reimold and Pearce both will as well.

 

 

Obviously, the above becomes more likely if we add more players through FA or trade. Even if we don't add anyone else, I still will be surprised if Urrutia breaks camp on the 25 man roster. I think he'd have to have a terrific ST to have a chance.

[Mackus]

Norris & Davis had KC's play-by-play guy on the radio this morning.  He was just gushing about Lough.

 

I really like the move.  I wanted Valencia to get 150-200 PAs against LHP, but I think Lough can be as good of a 4th outfielder as there is and if things don't go well with Reimold or any of the other guys with perhaps more offensive upside, he's a good insurance policy as the everyday LF.  His value wouldn't be his bat, but you get just as much benefit from every run he saves defensively as you would from every run another LF would create offensively. 

 

Given our limited payroll flexibility, a dirt cheap guy in LF who could be a 2-2.5 WAR player (even if nearly all of the above average value is from his defense) is a fine solution to one of our holes.  I'd prefer to have similarly filled the relief pitcher void with low cost options so we had more cash to go out and find a better solution in the rotation and at DH.

[DuffMan]

Man...what a waste of 3 roster spots that would be.

Don't worry Reimold won't last more than a week or two before coming down with another season ending injury.  That should open up 1 spot.

[Matt_P]

I don't think Urrutia will start the season on the 25 man roster. I doubt Reimold and Pearce both will as well.

 

 

Obviously, the above becomes more likely if we add more players through FA or trade. Even if we don't add anyone else, I still will be surprised if Urrutia breaks camp on the 25 man roster. I think he'd have to have a terrific ST to have a chance.

 

I'd think that Reimold would be DH and Pearce would be the fourth outfielder. Almanzar is on the bench. I'd be awfully surprised if the Os tendered contracts to Reimold or Pearce just to waive them before the season starts. Especially Reimold because his contract is guaranteed.

[Mackus]

I'd think that Reimold would be DH and Pearce would be the fourth outfielder. Almanzar is on the bench. I'd be awfully surprised if the Os tendered contracts to Reimold or Pearce just to waive them before the season starts. Especially Reimold because his contract is guaranteed.

 

Is Reimold's guaranteed?  I had been holding out hope that they both still qualified for that old rule (which may have been removed with the new CBA, I'm not sure) that you could cut a guy on an arbitration deal before the season starts and only owe him 30 days pay (roughly 1/6th of the deal).

[BSLChrisStoner]

Man...what a waste of 3 roster spots that would be.

Yeah, it could be... since it is now apparent that Lough is going to start in LF. So right now, I think we are looking at one of Reimold and Pearce and Urrutia as the platoon at DH. (With both - Reimold or Pearce, and Urrutia - getting occasional starts in LF.)

However, if they use one of Reimold or Pearce to platoon with Lough in LF (probably Reimold)... they can use the other as a platoon with Urrutia at DH. (EDIT: Not accurate, see the 25 man roster thread as of today for current projected roster.)

[Matt_P]

Is Reimold's guaranteed?  I had been holding out hope that they both still qualified for that old rule (which may have been removed with the new CBA, I'm not sure) that you could cut a guy on an arbitration deal before the season starts and only owe him 30 days pay (roughly 1/6th of the deal).

 

I seem to remember he insisted and got a clause in his contract saying that his contract would be guaranteed even if he was cut before the season started.

[bnickle]

Yeah, it could be... since it is now apparent that Lough is going to start in LF. So right now, I think we are looking at one of Reimold and Pearce and Urrutia as the platoon at DH. (With both - Reimold or Pearce, and Urrutia - getting occasional starts in LF.)

However, if they use one of Reimold or Pearce to platoon with Lough in LF (probably Reimold)... they can use the other as a platoon with Urrutia at DH.

You don't have the roster flexability to have multiple platoons. Especially, in this case where 3 of the players (Pearce, Reimold, and Urrutia are OFs....I know Pearce can play 1b as well but still).

[BSLChrisStoner]

You don't have the roster flexability to have multiple platoons. Especially, in this case where 3 of the players (Pearce, Reimold, and Urrutia are OFs....I know Pearce can play 1b as well but still).

 

You are right.  I've updated my projected 25 man roster as of 'today', here.

[Matt]

If he is the starting LF, hits for a .700 OPS, and has exceptional defense how much fWAR is that? 2-3?

[dude]

I'd think that Reimold would be DH and Pearce would be the fourth outfielder. Almanzar is on the bench. I'd be awfully surprised if the Os tendered contracts to Reimold or Pearce just to waive them before the season starts. Especially Reimold because his contract is guaranteed.

 

I started to write something on this in more detail the other day, but I'm guessing DD is just playing odds he never has to eat any (or much) of these deals.  He'll run them in ST (if he doesn't go ahead and solve the problems beforehand) and if he waives one of them, someone will claim them.  They'll be lost like they aren't tendered.  Worst case, they leave and you eat the deal, but the gaining team is responsible for the ML minimum portion (if they are on the roster) of the player.  Pretty insignificant if it's a 10M deal, but when Pearce is only making 700k.....the downside risk to holding onto him might only be 200k. 

[Mackus]

If he is the starting LF, hits for a .700 OPS, and has exceptional defense how much fWAR is that? 2-3?

 

Fangraphs had him at 2.4 WAR last year when he only had 335 PAs.

 

That was basically all defense, and it was scoring as off-the-charts excellent (his UZR/150 in the OF was 27.3, Manny's UZR/150 at 3B was 31.8).  If he comes down a bit in the metrics, 2-3 WAR for the season is a very reasonable estimate.

[dude]

Yeah, it could be... since it is now apparent that Lough is going to start in LF. So right now, 

 

Why would we be handing KCs 5th OFer our starting LF job?

[dude]

His value wouldn't be his bat, but you get just as much benefit from every run he saves defensively as you would from every run another LF would create offensively. 

 

I think this is an enormously flawed assumption.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Why would we be handing KCs 5th OFer our starting LF job?

 

Was pretty clear in Duquette's comments that he's going to start, so what is there to discuss? He was getting everyday ab's in June and July. Did slow in August and September though.

[Mackus]

I think this is an enormously flawed assumption.

 

Bullshit it is.

 

I don't think that UZR tells us exactly how many runs he saves in LF compared to another guy, but it's undoubtedly true that if you have two LF, and one is worth +10 runs offensively and -10 runs defensively while the other is worth -10 offensively and +10 defensively, you've got two equally valuable players.

 

Determining how many runs a guy is worth with the bat and glove is tough.  Knowing what those numbers mean if you have them, is not.

[Russ]

I think this is an enormously flawed assumption.

Bullshit it is.

It is, but how often does an excellent LF make a play that a poor to average LF doesn't make? It's got to be less than one a game. Maybe one every 3-4 games? I don't think LF is a place where you sacrifice some bat for a good glove. It's not worth it.

[Mackus]

It is, but how often does an excellent LF make a play that a poor to average LF doesn't make? It's got to be less than one a game. Maybe one every 3-4 games? I don't think LF is a place where you sacrifice some bat for a good glove. It's not worth it.

 

How often does a good LF get a hit that a poor to average LF doesn't?  It's got to be less than one a game.

[Russ]

It is, but how often does an excellent LF make a play that a poor to average LF doesn't make? It's got to be less than one a game. Maybe one every 3-4 games? I don't think LF is a place where you sacrifice some bat for a good glove. It's not worth it.

How often does a good LF get a hit that a poor to average LF doesn't? It's got to be less than one a game.

Good point. It depends on how bad the bat is. Not talking about Lough, I like him and he gets on base at a decent rate, but if there's a 100 point difference in OBP that's one more time reaching base every 10 at bats or once more every two games. It's a give and take I guess, but Lough does enough offensively to make it an okay decision.