Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Gleyber Torres isn’t making a demotion easy on Yankees | New York Post

He has looked great this spring training. There is no way he breaks with the team, though.

Of course, there’s still the reality that Torres has never played above Class A and is expected to open the season with Double-A Trenton.

General manager Brian Cashman has cautioned that Torres also hasn’t played in cold temperatures.

Jim Furtado Posted: March 15, 2017 at 06:53 AM | 86 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: gleyber torres, yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. T.J. Posted: March 15, 2017 at 11:03 AM (#5417644)
The Cubs won the World Series. The Cubs won the World Series. The Cubs won the World Series....
   2. Captain Supporter Posted: March 15, 2017 at 11:27 AM (#5417659)
Its interesting that Cashman seems to feel its necessary to try to dampen expectations about Torres' timetable to the major leagues. But the 'cold temperatures' attempt to do that strikes me as pretty lame. If that is the best that he has, he might want to think about pushing the the kid to AAA. After all, its pretty cold in Scranton in April.

The real reason to slow him down, of course, is that the Yankees are really trying to gear up to win in 2018, so you might as well not start his free agency timetable ticking until then. In any case, I try to keep my enthusiasm about prospects under control. Having said that, this kid is definitely starting to look like the real deal.
   3. Loren F. Posted: March 15, 2017 at 12:06 PM (#5417689)
Makes sense to reduce expectations; they have Sanchez and other stories to excite fans. If Torres dominates AA and AAA like Bryant in 2014, the Yankees can bring him up before the 2017 season is over. But we all know that's rare.
   4. Man o' Schwar Posted: March 15, 2017 at 12:09 PM (#5417690)
The Cubs won the World Series. The Cubs won the World Series. The Cubs won the World Series....

Yep. I don't care if he turns into the next incarnation of Honus Wagner. It was worth it.
   5. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: March 15, 2017 at 12:29 PM (#5417702)
Chapman gave the Cubs a 3.45 playoff ERA and blew 3 of his seven save opportunities including game 7 of the world series. I don't think that trade looks better using hindsight.
   6. weiss-man Posted: March 15, 2017 at 12:32 PM (#5417703)
Plus then he went back to the Yankees!
   7. T.J. Posted: March 15, 2017 at 12:48 PM (#5417713)
1. First of all, I hated the trade from the beginning, mainly based on the domestic issue. But when Rondon and Strop got hurt and struggled, it looked a lot better (purely from a baseball perspective).

2. He made the regular season an absolute walk in the park, not that it likely wouldn't have been without him: 1.01 ERA, 46/10 in 26.2.

3. Pops: He was great in the playoffs when he needed to be: Games One and Four of the NLDS, ESPECIALLY Game Five of the WS, and the 9th inning of Game Seven, during which I was sure he was going to be lit up AGAIN. I blame Game 6 of the WS and the 8th inning of Game Seven on Maddon. I blame Game Five of the NLCS on him being a prima donna. Yes, this is cherry-picking. So be it.

4. I enjoyed the karma of him NOT being on the field when the Cubs actually won the World Series.

5. weiss-man: Good riddance!

6. The Cubs won the World Series, and I'll always believe in the Butterfly Effect. I wouldn't change anything. In retrospect (and in retrospect ONLY, mind you), I even enjoy watching Rajai Davis's home run.
   8. Covfefe Posted: March 15, 2017 at 03:00 PM (#5417825)
I think the Cubs win it regardless of Chapman... or with a lesser bullpen acquisition that wouldn't have cost Torres.

I hated the trade when it was made, hated it gorging on champagne (but didn't care/think about it), and hate it now.

The upside is that, realistically -- Torres either needed to become an obvious A-Rod -- or he was going to be traded anyway as the Cubs appear pretty well set at 3B/SS/2B. Even the fact that Bryant could theoretically go to the OF -- it means he'd be bumping Schwarber to the bench (or turning Heyward into the most expensive defensive replacement in history).

Flags fly forever. We got something virtually no living Cubs fan has ever gotten. And it's not like dealing Torres left any gaping holes for now or in the near-future (disaster aside).... so it's hard to be too upset.... sorta the equivalent of a pigeon pooping on the new Maserati someone bought for you.

Still, hated the trade, hate the trade, will probably hate in the future.
   9. Meatwad in 7 Posted: March 15, 2017 at 03:14 PM (#5417834)
Also he has played in the cold. South Bend is not really a warm weather city, and the midwest league in general is not warm weather citys.
   10. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 15, 2017 at 03:42 PM (#5417862)
He's 20 years old and hasn't played above A+. Make any lame excuse you want, he doesn't belong in MLB.

If he puts up 250 PA of a 150 wRC+ in AA, move him to AAA. If he does the same there, promote him in Sept.

If not, there's no reason not to let him dominate AA for a full season. His A+ numbers weren't that great.
   11. Jim Furtado Posted: March 15, 2017 at 03:49 PM (#5417872)
I agree with snapper. There is no reason to rush his development.
   12. Walt Davis Posted: March 15, 2017 at 05:47 PM (#5417996)
I will agree with Snapper if he agrees that a phrase along the lines of "very likely" belongs between "he" and "doesn't".

It is perfectly sensible for the Yanks to start him at AA. It was perfectly sensible for the Angels to start Trout in the minors at 20 but, with hindsight, we can be pretty confident he was ML ready when they sent him down. Bryce Harper was ready before 20; Carlos Correa might well have been ready at the start of 2015, and it's even more likely if he hadn't gotten hurt at 19 (although he probably would have played some AA then). Even on a more human level, Elvis Andrus put up 3.6 WAR in a full season at age 20.

It's essentially tautological that you don't want to rush a prospect just as it's essentially tautological that you don't want to slow his development.
   13. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 15, 2017 at 06:17 PM (#5418015)
I will agree with Snapper if he agrees that a phrase along the lines of "very likely" belongs between "he" and "doesn't".

It is perfectly sensible for the Yanks to start him at AA. It was perfectly sensible for the Angels to start Trout in the minors at 20 but, with hindsight, we can be pretty confident he was ML ready when they sent him down. Bryce Harper was ready before 20; Carlos Correa might well have been ready at the start of 2015, and it's even more likely if he hadn't gotten hurt at 19 (although he probably would have played some AA then). Even on a more human level, Elvis Andrus put up 3.6 WAR in a full season at age 20.

It's essentially tautological that you don't want to rush a prospect just as it's essentially tautological that you don't want to slow his development.


Even if he somehow made the huge leap in the off-season from good but not outstanding at A+, to MLB ready, what's the harm from letting him prove it? If he spends his age 20 season destroying AA and AAA, rather than in MLB, what's the harm?

   14. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 15, 2017 at 09:42 PM (#5418103)
Greg Bird is having a great spring, as is Gary Sanchez. The holes are being filled, and if the pitching comes together, the Yanks may contend this season rather than next. I wouldn't rush Torres, but if he excels at AA, I'd move him up to AAA fairly quickly, to position him to be called up if there is an injury at 2nd base, SS, or 3rd base, or if someone just needs to be replaced, with Chase Headley the most likely candidate.
   15. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 15, 2017 at 09:53 PM (#5418107)
I have this recurring nightmare where the Yankees beat the Cubs in the 2017 WS on a Torres HR in the top of the 9th in game 7, and Chapman shutting down the Cubs in his 3rd inning of work in the bottom of the 9th and the Yankees celebrating in Wrigley.

Actually, I don't. Chapman may or may not have made a difference in 2016, but I know that having him on the roster prevented shaving a few years off the end for me. I have blood pressure issues as it is.

   16. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 15, 2017 at 10:11 PM (#5418114)
Greg Bird is having a great spring, as is Gary Sanchez. The holes are being filled, and if the pitching comes together, the Yanks may contend this season rather than next. I wouldn't rush Torres, but if he excels at AA, I'd move him up to AAA fairly quickly, to position him to be called up if there is an injury at 2nd base, SS, or 3rd base, or if someone just needs to be replaced, with Chase Headley the most likely candidate.

The starting pitching is crap. Let's face reality. We don't need Torres burning service time just to be marginally better than Castro or Headley. Also, you don't want MLB positional need forcing him off SS.

Let him get a full year at SS in the minors to show us whether Gregorius is trade bait or not. My guess is yes. Torres is the opening day SS in 2018, and Gregorius gets moved this winter for SP.
   17. Covfefe Posted: March 15, 2017 at 11:36 PM (#5418136)
Unless by SP, you mean Adam Warren or a B/B- prospect like Sean Newcomb - I'm not seeing Gregorius fetching more than Castro or Simmons fetched.... I suppose unless last years power spurt was only a taste of even bigger things.
   18. Walt Davis Posted: March 16, 2017 at 03:28 AM (#5418155)
Even if he somehow made the huge leap in the off-season from good but not outstanding at A+, to MLB ready, what's the harm from letting him prove it? If he spends his age 20 season destroying AA and AAA, rather than in MLB, what's the harm?

Who knows? He gets frustrated. He develops bad habits destroying inferior pitchers. He doesn't develop better habits because he doesn't need them to destroy inferior pitchers. You delay his adjustments to MLB pitching by 2-3 months meaning he doesn't really hit his stride until mid-season 2018 instead of April 2018, causing the Yanks to miss the playoffs. He starts hanging out with the bad kids in Trenton or Scranton/Wilkes-Barre instead of supermodels in posh NY clubs. He isn't there to save future President-King Eric Trump when he crosses 5th avenue without looking both ways.

Don't #### around with players who are ready, don't leave some kid at a level to put up a 1050 OPS just cuz. If the Yanks don't think he's ready, then of course send him down.
   19. Sleepless in Munich Posted: March 16, 2017 at 05:29 AM (#5418157)
He develops bad habits destroying inferior pitchers. He doesn't develop better habits because he doesn't need them to destroy inferior pitchers.

Don't #### around with players who are ready, don't leave some kid at a level to put up a 1050 OPS just cuz.

I agree in general, but Torres hasn't destroyed any pitching in his pro career. In 2015 he had a 116 wRC+ in 514 PA in A-Ball. For 2016, the Cubs promoted him to A+ where he put up a 121 wRC+ in 409 PA before being traded. With the Yankees, he was more of the same, 115 wRC+ in 138 PA.
   20. Covfefe Posted: March 16, 2017 at 09:57 AM (#5418198)
While none of the Yankee IF are great shakes - I think that the other issue is that it doesn't make sense to have Torres up if he's basically going to be the utility guy.

I suppose if Girardi found his inner Maddon and rotated Torres with Headley/Gregorius/Castro in a manner that got him regular PAs, that would be one thing... but in practical terms, if you're not going to do that - I don't see the point of Torres sitting on a big league bench.

Maybe if the Yankees fancied themselves top contenders - it's worth it from the team perspective, but given that it would seem they probably think themselves more WC/fringe contenders - not seeing why they'd make the jump.
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 16, 2017 at 10:05 AM (#5418202)
Unless by SP, you mean Adam Warren or a B/B- prospect like Sean Newcomb - I'm not seeing Gregorius fetching more than Castro or Simmons fetched.... I suppose unless last years power spurt was only a taste of even bigger things.

I think a young, cheap, 3 WAR SS would have significant trade value.
   22. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 16, 2017 at 10:08 AM (#5418203)

Don't #### around with players who are ready, don't leave some kid at a level to put up a 1050 OPS just cuz. If the Yanks don't think he's ready, then of course send him down.


Could we let Torres actually have a great half-season in miLB before we declare him ready? You leave him in miLB b/c he's 20, has never had even a very good miLB season, and there's no place to play him on the MLB roster.

   23. Covfefe Posted: March 16, 2017 at 10:48 AM (#5418225)
I think a young, cheap, 3 WAR SS would have significant trade value.


He's relatively cheap for 2017 - but he's up for arb again after this season... and he's actually the same age as both Castro and Simmons. He's also had just one 3 WAR season - Castro has had two, Simmons has had four (granted, mostly dWAR based 3 WAR seasons, so distrust if one wishes).

The one thing that Gregorius has over Castro and Simmons - which is a debatable "has over" - is that he doesn't have an arb + couple FA year buyout contract. I suppose it's unlikely - though not impossible - that Gregorius' 2018 raise gets him up to Castro's and Simmon's 2018 contract (~11 mil), so he's probably a bit cheaper... but OTOH, he'd also be getting closer to being a 'rental'.

Ultimately, I'm just not seeing where the market for Gregorius would be better than it was for Castro or Simmons... again, unless the power bump is more than just real - but actually a launching pad to something even more.

I think that the market for him is also hurt by the fact that most of the teams that look to be contenders are pretty well set at SS -- the Indians have Lindor, the Cubs have Russell, the Cards have Diaz, the Astros have Correa, the Dodgers have Seager, etc. I suppose it's foolhardy to look a year ahead to think about which teams need what, but baseball seems pretty flush with better, younger SSs -- and there's also a pretty decent list of SS prospects that their teams seem pretty high on.
   24. rconn23 Posted: March 16, 2017 at 10:48 AM (#5418226)
Where's the playing time for Torres? You haven't played him enough at second to take over for the most glaring weakness in the IF, Castro, and Gregorius is a good SS, who has done nothing to lose his starting job.

Torres starts at AA, where he should be and hopefully plays well enough to warrant a quick promotion to AAA.
   25. Russ Posted: March 16, 2017 at 11:09 AM (#5418235)
Somewhat related topic -- does anyone know where to get a table of Minor League (and other league) equivalencies for last year like the old Davenport translations? I assume that most of the projection systems are using these, but I have no idea where to get them and don't feel like trying to generate them myself.


   26. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 16, 2017 at 01:29 PM (#5418336)
Somewhat related topic -- does anyone know where to get a table of Minor League (and other league) equivalencies for last year like the old Davenport translations? I assume that most of the projection systems are using these, but I have no idea where to get them and don't feel like trying to generate them myself.

Fangraphs hase wRC+ for minor leagues, which is league adjusted, but not park adjusted.
   27. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 16, 2017 at 06:54 PM (#5418592)
. . . but Torres hasn't destroyed any pitching in his pro career.

The Arizona Fall League counts for something here. Torres was the MVP as the youngest player in the league. And his spring training performance is what really triggered the talk of his getting to the Bronx sooner rather than later. He'll still have to perform at AA & AAA, but that doesn't seem as iffy as when the Yanks traded for him.
   28. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 16, 2017 at 08:34 PM (#5418625)
I think that the market for him is also hurt by the fact that most of the teams that look to be contenders are pretty well set at SS -- the Indians have Lindor, the Cubs have Russell, the Cards have Diaz, the Astros have Correa, the Dodgers have Seager, etc.


The league is really lousy with good, young SS. In addition to those mentioned, there's Bogearts, Swanson, Tim Anderson, Trea Turner, Trevor Story. Brandon Crawford isn't exactly young, but the Giants won't be looking for a SS anytime soon. Ditto the Jays. Ditto the Angels. Marcus Semien in OAK is better than Didi. Of the remaining teams, Didi isn't enough of an upgrade on what they already have to warrant a trade of anything good. It's not that no one could use him, just that the market is really thin. I'm not sure they could even get Adam warren for him right now. All bets are off of course should a contender lose their primary to injury.
   29. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 17, 2017 at 10:19 AM (#5418789)
Why would the Yankees trade Didi Gregorius to the Yankees for Adam Warren?

Anyway, they don't need to trade anybody to open a spot for Torres, even if he tears up the high minors this year. One of Castro/Gregorius just becomes an overpriced utility player.
   30. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2017 at 10:31 AM (#5418793)
Anyway, they don't need to trade anybody to open a spot for Torres, even if he tears up the high minors this year. One of Castro/Gregorius just becomes an overpriced utility player.

Why would you do that rather than make a trade?
   31. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 17, 2017 at 10:33 AM (#5418796)
So where does Torres rank among other young minor league SS like Wily Adames and Franklin Barreto?
   32. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2017 at 10:37 AM (#5418799)
The league is really lousy with good, young SS. In addition to those mentioned, there's Bogearts, Swanson, Tim Anderson, Trea Turner, Trevor Story. Brandon Crawford isn't exactly young, but the Giants won't be looking for a SS anytime soon. Ditto the Jays. Ditto the Angels. Marcus Semien in OAK is better than Didi. Of the remaining teams, Didi isn't enough of an upgrade on what they already have to warrant a trade of anything good. It's not that no one could use him, just that the market is really thin. I'm not sure they could even get Adam warren for him right now. All bets are off of course should a contender lose their primary to injury.

This is a major overstatement. Gregorius was 14th in MLB by fWAR in 2016, 16th by bWAR. In 2015 he was 7th and 18th respectively.

He's a mid-range starter at a difficult position. That has value. Especially when there's no rush to move him.
   33. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 17, 2017 at 10:41 AM (#5418804)
Why would you do that rather than make a trade?


I said that they don't HAVE to trade anybody, not that they shouldn't if they can get something of value. But if the market is thin, then you don't trade Didi just to trade Didi.
   34. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2017 at 10:42 AM (#5418805)
So where does Torres rank among other young minor league SS like Wily Adames and Franklin Barreto?

Current consensus is that he's much better than those two, and basically tied with Swanson for best SS prospect. MLB.com has him as the #3 overall prospect, ahead of Swanson (#4), Rosario, Crawford, etc. BA has him #5, behind Swanson (#3) but ahead of all those guys. Sickels has him #7, behind Swanson and Rosario.
   35. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2017 at 10:43 AM (#5418806)
I said that they don't HAVE to trade anybody, not that they shouldn't if they can get something of value. But if the market is thin, then you don't trade Didi just to trade Didi.

Sure.
   36. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 17, 2017 at 10:54 AM (#5418816)
basically tied with Swanson for best SS prospect


This is one of my pet peeves about prospect lists. Isn't Swanson the Braves opening day SS? Isn't it unlikely that he plays another minor league game outside of maybe some future rehab assignment? Same goes for Benintendi -- he's Boston's starting left fielder, right? Isn't he pretty much an established major-leaguer at this point?
   37. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2017 at 11:00 AM (#5418817)
This is one of my pet peeves about prospect lists. Isn't Swanson the Braves opening day SS? Isn't it unlikely that he plays another minor league game outside of maybe some future rehab assignment? Same goes for Benintendi -- he's Boston's starting left fielder, right? Isn't he pretty much an established major-leaguer at this point?

Most prospect hounds use rookie eligibility. I wouldn't call them "established". 150 PAs is not determinant.

I'd prefer a list of guys under 25, <500 PAs.
   38. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 17, 2017 at 11:27 AM (#5418825)
This is a major overstatement. Gregorius was 14th in MLB by fWAR in 2016, 16th by bWAR. In 2015 he was 7th and 18th respectively.


Didi had better numbers than Swanson and Anderson, but the Braves and White Sox sure as hell aren't going to trade for him. He's better than whoever Tampa has but they are not going to trade for a soon to be expensive mediocrity. He's slightly better than Jose Iglesias, but I can't see the Tigers giving up much for a marginal upgrade. Yes, in a vacuum, a youngish league average SS is a valuable commodity. But what is the realistic market for him? Teams with as good or better SS or at least hot shot prospects that they will give every opportunity to*:

TOR
BOS
TBR
CLE
DET
CHW
OAK
LAA
HOU
TEX
SEA
WSN
NYM
PHI
ATL
CHC
STL
CIN
COL
LAD
SFG
SDP

Who does that leave?

BAL
KCR
MIN
MIA
PIT
ARI

Not much of a market.

*I included teams who have minor league SS prospects ranked in the top 50.



   39. The Good Face Posted: March 17, 2017 at 11:34 AM (#5418833)
No reason to think Gregorius couldn't play 2B if necessary, which would broaden his potential market. Most teams don't have two above average MIs.
   40. Covfefe Posted: March 17, 2017 at 11:37 AM (#5418835)
This is a major overstatement. Gregorius was 14th in MLB by fWAR in 2016, 16th by bWAR. In 2015 he was 7th and 18th respectively.


Except - the leaderboard isn't straight-line linear... He's bunched up with a lot of other meh options. What's more - among the guys who clearly rank below him, we're talking about guys that the owning teams are inexplicably in love with (take a bow, Alcides Escobar). I mean - I'd take Gregorius over Escobar, but I doubt the Royals would.

I'm not saying he's worthless, I'm just saying I have a tough time seeing how he fetches a SP -- unless, like I said, we're talking about a B prospect or "in the mix for the 5th starter" type SP.

29's take -- either him or Castro become utility players -- would seem to be a better expectation, given that the Yankees can easily afford an overpriced utility IF...
   41. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM (#5418841)
No reason to think Gregorius couldn't play 2B if necessary, which would broaden his potential market. Most teams don't have two above average MIs.

Correct.

Teams with as good or better SS or at least hot shot prospects that they will give every opportunity to*:

Since Torres is unlikely to be ready before 2018, there's plenty of time for those guys to get worse, get hurt, or show they can't stay at SS.

I don't think there's ever been a time in MLB history where a 2.5-3 WAR SS couldn't fetch something better than a #5 starter.
   42. Covfefe Posted: March 17, 2017 at 11:58 AM (#5418862)
I don't think there's ever been a time in MLB history where a 2.5-3 WAR SS couldn't fetch something better than a #5 starter.


The Simmons trade says otherwise... Again, I'd toss Castro in that mix, too.

If we want to expand that to include 2B -- there's Neil Walker, who fetched Jon Niese. Niese may be more of a 4th SP than a 5th SP - but not by much, and Walker had out-WAR'd Gregorius every year of their career (though, granted - Walker can't play SS). Eduardo Nunez fetched a B pitching prospect for the Twins. Jean Segura didn't fetch much for Milwaukee -- though, I do like the Walker/Marte package the DBacks got for him (of course, Segura inexplicably went gangbuster and posted nearly a 6 WAR season last year).

I suppose if you consider a Jon Niese a step up from the Warren/Newcomb level...

But scanning MI trades over the last 2-3 seasons - I'm not seeing any return over and above that...

   43. The Good Face Posted: March 17, 2017 at 12:59 PM (#5418916)
I don't think there's ever been a time in MLB history where a 2.5-3 WAR SS couldn't fetch something better than a #5 starter.


I'd be fine with a haul of live arms/lottery tickets. Most contending teams won't trade away a league average-ish starter (or better) for a non-star player, but they're usually willing to part with some young guys who throw really hard. The Yanks can buy higher end MLB talent with money, but stocking a deep farm system with quality arms is harder to do with just cash.
   44. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2017 at 01:03 PM (#5418920)
But scanning MI trades over the last 2-3 seasons - I'm not seeing any return over and above that...


That would be a very odd conclusion. A current MLB SS who projects to give you 10-12 WAR over the next 4 years (or 12-15 in Simmonds case) at below market rates is worth the same as a pitching prospect who projects give you 3-4 WAR over the total of his first 6 years (using FG projections for Newcombe).

If that was the case, every team with a bunch of live young arms should be able to trade themselves into a pennant contender immediately.
   45. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2017 at 01:05 PM (#5418923)
I'd be fine with a haul of live arms/lottery tickets. Most contending teams won't trade away a league average-ish starter (or better) for a non-star player, but they're usually willing to part with some young guys who throw really hard. The Yanks can buy higher end MLB talent with money, but stocking a deep farm system with quality arms is harder to do with just cash.

Although they seem to be really good at making OK arms into fireballers at the moment.

In general I agree. I'd take good prospects for Gregorius. But not guys who scream #4-5 ceiling.
   46. SG Posted: March 17, 2017 at 02:47 PM (#5418979)
Somewhat related topic -- does anyone know where to get a table of Minor League (and other league) equivalencies for last year like the old Davenport translations? I assume that most of the projection systems are using these, but I have no idea where to get them and don't feel like trying to generate them myself.


Clay Davenport still runs these, he just isn't affiliated with B Pro anymore.

For example, here is his page for 2016 International League translations.

DT Report for 2016 International League

Just use the pull downs at the top to change league, year and whether you want translations or real stats.
   47. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 17, 2017 at 04:10 PM (#5419049)
Most prospect hounds use rookie eligibility.


So one more 2016 at-bat and Swanson wouldn't be on the 2017 prospect lists? That's sort of my point.

I wonder if the Braves would have pulled him from the last game of the season if he was going to get another PA.
   48. ReggieThomasLives Posted: March 17, 2017 at 04:37 PM (#5419062)
I don't think there's ever been a time in MLB history where a 2.5-3 WAR SS couldn't fetch something better than a #5 starter.


I guarantee the Diamondbacks would trade Grienke straight up for Gregorious.
   49. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 17, 2017 at 04:40 PM (#5419065)
I don't think there's ever been a time in MLB history where a 2.5-3 WAR SS couldn't fetch something better than a #5 starter.


You keep saying this, but how does a guy who has been above 2.2 WAR once project to be a 2.5-3.0 guy? Yes, if he improves and some team's prospects flame out, you might have a market for a good return. And if I had some bacon, I could have bacon and eggs if I had some eggs.
   50. The Good Face Posted: March 17, 2017 at 04:59 PM (#5419074)
You keep saying this, but how does a guy who has been above 2.2 WAR once project to be a 2.5-3.0 guy?


He's entering his age 27 season and his combined WAR in the past two seasons (the only ones where he's been a full time player) is 5.5. It's not unreasonable to describe that guy as a 2.5 - 3 WAR player.
   51. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 17, 2017 at 05:03 PM (#5419078)
I guarantee the Diamondbacks would trade Grienke straight up for Gregorious.


Prior to the adoption of punitive Budshovist economics that might even be something the Yankees could consider, to the mutual benefit of both teams. Alas, the league's wholehearted adoption of onerous penalties for offering too many market-value contracts ends up penalizing even the most impoverished of the league, now unable to shed themselves of ill-advised contracts which now come with additional anchors designed to drag down any team seeking to be their savior.
   52. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2017 at 05:10 PM (#5419084)
He's entering his age 27 season and his combined WAR in the past two seasons (the only ones where he's been a full time player) is 5.5. It's not unreasonable to describe that guy as a 2.5 - 3 WAR player.

To add, per BRef Gregorius has been worth 8.2 WAR for his career in 1899 PAs, or 3.3 WAR/650 PA.
   53. Scott Lange Posted: March 17, 2017 at 05:50 PM (#5419108)
Hated it when it happened, hated it for the rest of the regular season, hated it in the playoffs, REALLY hated it during the 8th, 9th, and 10th innings of game 7, brain briefly shut down, hated it all winter, hate it now. 7 years of a cost-controlled top prospect probably shouldn't be traded for three months of Babe Ruth, and certainly not for thee months of a relief pitcher with domestic abuse issues. Its illogical to try to justify anything with an "ends justify the means" argument, but especially when you consider that his particular "end" was being personally responsible for the most devastating half-inning in Cubs history, Bartman-included.

Terrible trade. Definitely glad we won though.
   54. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 17, 2017 at 07:52 PM (#5419143)
Terrible trade. Definitely glad we won though.


OK, what better use of him can you envision? Not getting Chapman would have decreased the chances of winning the WS. Maybe they still win. But maybe not. They won the WS by an extra inning win in game 7. Removing a valuable reliever is a big deal in that close a win.

So let's say the Cubs don't trade him. What do you do now? SS and 2b are locked up for a long time. They may not now be the defending WS champs. Trade him for someone who will help win the WS this year? How is that different from last year? How valuable is money in the bank if you don't spend it?
   55. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: March 17, 2017 at 08:04 PM (#5419145)
To add, per BRef Gregorius has been worth 8.2 WAR for his career in 1899 PAs, or 3.3 WAR/650 PA.


That's 2.8 WAR/650PA, not 3.3.
   56. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 17, 2017 at 08:18 PM (#5419151)
To add, per BRef Gregorius has been worth 8.2 WAR for his career in 1899 PAs, or 3.3 WAR/650 PA.


That's 2.8 WAR/650PA, not 3.3.


That, plus, he's never had 650 PA. Or even 600.
   57. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2017 at 09:21 PM (#5419158)
That's 2.8 WAR/650PA, not 3.3.

Strange. BRef is getting the math wrong.
   58. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 17, 2017 at 09:50 PM (#5419161)
The Yanks no-hit the Tigers today, on the road even.
   59. Scott Lange Posted: March 17, 2017 at 10:24 PM (#5419165)
OK, what better use of him can you envision? Not getting Chapman would have decreased the chances of winning the WS.

From the perspective of the trade date looking forward, getting Chapman for Torres increased the chances of winning the 2016 WS by (let's just take a stab) 3%. But it decreased the chances of winning seven other WS by between (more stabs) 1% and 5%. The net impact, whether you measure by WAR, or any reasonable subjective guess, was fewer total WS wins (in my opinion).

As far as a better use, he could be our starting SS this year if (god forbid) Addison Russell got hurt. Or, he could be traded for an elite pitching prospect who wins 300 games for us. Or, he could be the centerpiece of a trade deadline swap for a cost-controlled outfielder who could play here for years to come. Or, about a million things. I don't think there has ever been a team that has no use for a top-five prospect shortstop (either on the field or in trade), and I don't think we would've been the first.

Maybe they still win. But maybe not. They won the WS by an extra inning win in game 7. Removing a valuable reliever is a big deal in that close a win.

And now, from the perspective of the end of game seven looking backward... you aren't seriously arguing that, knowing what we know now, having Chapman in Game 7 helped our chances there? I mean... he was horrific. Speed way down, movement gone, location nonexistent, fooled no one, and career ISO .120 Rajah Davis pulled his fastball out of the park for the single worst at-bat in Cubs' franchise history. To be clear, I don't believe in that sort of results-based analysis, but to the extent you do, it beggars belief that you could feel his Game 7 performance supports trading for him.
   60. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 17, 2017 at 10:58 PM (#5419169)
I don't think he was saying that Chapman was instrumental in winning game 7. Rather, given that the season came down to extra innings of game 7, the Cubs might well have already lost if they'd had one less quality reliever.
   61. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 17, 2017 at 11:19 PM (#5419173)
I don't think he was saying that Chapman was instrumental in winning game 7. Rather, given that the season came down to extra innings of game 7, the Cubs might well have already lost if they'd had one less quality reliever.


This.
   62. Meatwad in 7 Posted: March 18, 2017 at 01:38 AM (#5419187)
Game 5 is why they got chapman game 7 was joes mistake.
   63. Scott Lange Posted: March 18, 2017 at 09:11 AM (#5419202)
#60 and #61, I just don't follow. Are you talking about looking forward, or looking backwards? If its looking forward, you've got to argue that three months of Chapman (minus $5M in salary, minus domestic violence risk, minus domestic violence PR hit) is more valuable than 7 years of Torres (minus his cost-controlled salary). You could argue that there is some premium for Chapman's value because 1) we were closer to a WS in summer 2016 than we were likely to be over the course of Torres's career and/or 2) we had an unusually high need for a ace lefty re Is that what you were saying?

Or are you talking about looking backwards? If so, you've got to argue that having some other pitcher in Game 7 would've been worse. I'm not sure I would've been worse, much less an actual baseball pitcher. Is that what you're saying?

Or are you doing some weird hybrid? Like "looking backward, we know it came down to one inning of game 7, so, looking forward, the chasm in value between 3 months of Chapman and 7 years of Torres was worth it"? That seems like nonsensical method of analysis to me, but perhaps you disagree?
   64. Sebastian Posted: March 18, 2017 at 11:12 AM (#5419240)
I'm not sure I would've been worse
I’m sure you would have been.
   65. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 18, 2017 at 11:36 AM (#5419244)
Jesus, Scott, all we're arguing is that the Cubs quite possibly don't win the 2016 WS if they don't pick up another high quality bullpen arm at the deadline. Would you rather it had been someone other than Chapman and cost someone other than Torres? Fair enough. No need to put words in anyone's mouth to make that point.
   66. Scott Lange Posted: March 18, 2017 at 12:14 PM (#5419253)
Jesus, Scott, all we're arguing is that the Cubs quite possibly don't win the 2016 WS if they don't pick up another high quality bullpen arm at the deadline.

Wait, you aren't arguing that it was a good trade? I really thought you were. If not, my mistake.

But if so, can you just answer my question in #63? I'd love to understand which perspective you're defending the trade from- looking forward from the trade date, looking backward knowing the result, or some hybrid.
   67. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 18, 2017 at 12:32 PM (#5419260)
Personally, if I were going to either criticize or defend a trade, I would always and only do so on the basis of what was knowable at the time the trade was made, since that's the only approach that's fair to the people who made the trade. Now that doesn't mean that "flags fly forever" is off the table as an argument, since you can still argue that the trade prospectively increased the chances of getting to fly a flag. Also, there's not necessarily anything wrong with looking at what actually happened and deciding that you'll take it, even if you would have done things differently.

But in this case, all I was trying to do was point out that you were misunderstanding misirlou's posts.

EDIT: BTW, I'm a Yankee fan, so I loved the trade at the time, love it more now, and hope to love it even more in the future.
   68. Scott Lange Posted: March 18, 2017 at 12:59 PM (#5419271)
I agree with everything in your first paragraph, cerco. But I've read Misrlou's #54 several times now, and it clearly seems to me to be saying it was a good trade. I think it was an awful trade, so I'm trying to understand the perspective from which he is coming (look forward, look backward based on results, or something else), so we can discuss it. Maybe I'm wrong, and he's not saying its a good trade- if so, I'd love to be set straight.
   69. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 18, 2017 at 01:17 PM (#5419275)
Or, he could be traded for an elite pitching prospect who wins 300 games for us.


I think you're overrating his trade value. Even Russell, who was a better prospect than Torres is now, didn't bring back an elite pitching prospect -- he brought back two years of Samardzija and one year of Jason Hammel.
   70. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 18, 2017 at 01:19 PM (#5419276)
At this point, he'll have to speak for himself, but even if he was arguing that it was a good trade, he most certainly was not arguing that it was a good trade because of Chapman's performance in game 7. And that's the misunderstanding I was talking about.
   71. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 18, 2017 at 01:23 PM (#5419278)
It was a good trade. The Cubs got a ring that they might not have gotten without the trade. At worst it improved their chances. And it didn't cost them much. And by that, I don't mean that Torres isn't a very valuable property, he is. But he does not fill a need on the team now nor in the immediate future. The Cubs aren't going to be scrambling for a MI because of the trade. The Cubs did exactly what you are supposed to do when you have excess talent in one area and a glaring need in another.

I get the angst in trading a very valuable chit for a rental, but the rental paid off in the biggest way possible. So I'm fine with it. If they had been able to get Davis for Soler last year that would obviously have been better. But I think that anyone with a valuable reliever to trade last year would have been insisting on Torres. That's just how it goes.
   72. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 18, 2017 at 01:25 PM (#5419279)
he brought back two years of Samardzija and one year of Jason Hammel.


1.5 and .5
   73. McCoy Posted: March 18, 2017 at 01:32 PM (#5419283)
The Cubs did exactly what you are supposed to do when you have excess talent in one area and a glaring need in another.


I would generally agree with provided the glaring need is a position player or a starting pitcher. If it wasn't for the championship this trade could very well turn out as badly as the Bagwell for Andersen trade. It be one thing if the Cubs had traded for an elite reliever that would be under contract for 3 or 4 more years but a whole other thing to trade for a reliever to pitch 30 innings and that is it.

Having said that I'll admit that Torres was not in my mind at the time and I doubt he was on most Cub fans' minds at the time. I think in part the Yankee media and fans have created or upped the hype around Torres.
   74. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 18, 2017 at 01:42 PM (#5419285)
It be one thing if the Cubs had traded for an elite reliever that would be under contract for 3 or 4 more years


Those guys, if they exist, cost a lot more than one glibber Torres.

but a whole other thing to trade for a reliever to pitch 30 innings and that is it.


He pitched 42 innings, the last 16 of which were some of the highest leverage innings possible.
   75. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 18, 2017 at 01:56 PM (#5419291)
the Yankee media and fans have created or upped the hype around Torres


The Yankee media and fans didn't create the prospect rankings or Torres' ST performance.
   76. McCoy Posted: March 18, 2017 at 02:42 PM (#5419305)
He pitched 42 innings, the last 16 of which were some of the highest leverage innings possible.

Oh, well, that changes everything.

Who got the final outs for the Cubs to win the WS?
   77. Scott Lange Posted: March 18, 2017 at 02:43 PM (#5419306)
And it didn't cost them much. And by that, I don't mean that Torres isn't a very valuable property, he is. But he does not fill a need on the team now nor in the immediate future. The Cubs aren't going to be scrambling for a MI because of the trade. The Cubs did exactly what you are supposed to do when you have excess talent in one area and a glaring need in another.

I think this is the real point of disagreement. We agree that Torres was more valuable than Chapman in the abstract, but you think that Torres had little value to us, since we already have a shortstop. Do I have that right?

I would say that Torres was basically just as valuable to us as to anyone else. Maybe Russell gets hurt and Torres plays short for the Cubs for the next fifteen years. Or maybe he moves to second or third. Or maybe he gets traded for something closer to his objective value, and fills literally any need at all we might happen to have in the future.

And I would also say that we didn't *need* Chapman. Our chances of winning the title before the trade were, let's say, 20%. After, maybe they were 22%. We could have won it with no trade it all! Or we could have won it by getting a different relief upgrade. Or we could've won it by getting rental outfielder/DH.

Say you could use a LOOGY, and you've got a young Willie Mays and a young Mickey Mantle. It would be madness to say "well, they can't both play CF, so we might as well trade one of them for three months of Jesse Orosco." Instead, you move one to a different position, or trade one for a different reliever and help elsewhere, or whatever.

I think you're overrating his trade value. Even Russell, who was a better prospect than Torres is now, didn't bring back an elite pitching prospect -- he brought back two years of Samardzija and one year of Jason Hammel.

I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that an elite pitching prospect is worth more in trade than an elite hitting prospect. If there is, I haven't seen it. And it seems absurd to argue that Beane's universally-panned Russell trade defines what an elite shortstop prospect is worth.
   78. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 18, 2017 at 02:56 PM (#5419311)
Say you could use a LOOGY, and you've got a young Willie Mays and a young Mickey Mantle. It would be madness to say "well, they can't both play CF, so we might as well trade one of them for three months of Jesse Orosco." Instead, you move one to a different position, or trade one for a different reliever and help elsewhere, or whatever.


That's disingenuous in the extreme. Chapman wasn't a mere LOOGY, and Torres is not Mays nor Mantle, and if you do have Mays and Mantle you play one in right, whereas Torres is an infielder and you have Russell, Baez, Zobrist, Bryant, and Happ and Candelerio in the minors, and how much trade value to you think a 20 YO hotshot SS prospect has anyway? It was brought up earlier that it took Russell, McKinney, Dan Strailey, and cash to get 1.5 years of a #2 starter and .5 years of a #4.
   79. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 18, 2017 at 05:57 PM (#5419346)

I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that an elite pitching prospect is worth more in trade than an elite hitting prospect. If there is, I haven't seen it. And it seems absurd to argue that Beane's universally-panned Russell trade defines what an elite shortstop prospect is worth.


The only objective way to determine what a shortstop prospect is worth in trade is to see what shortstop prospects have brought back in return.

Also, I don't see Torres as an 'elite' hitting prospect, certainly not one who brings back a young 300-game winner-to-be. You'd need a young Mike Trout for that.
   80. Scott Lange Posted: March 18, 2017 at 06:21 PM (#5419355)
That's disingenuous in the extreme. Chapman wasn't a mere LOOGY, and Torres is not Mays nor Mantle


Its not disingenuous at all- its reducing the argument to the absurd to show why its wrong. Trading someone (Mays, Mantle, Torres, anyone) for pennies on the dollar because you don't have an immediate opening to put him in is dumb- that's the point.

and if you do have Mays and Mantle you play one in right, whereas Torres is an infielder and you have Russell, Baez, Zobrist, Bryant, and Happ and Candelerio in the minors,

As I've said several times already (gonna have to make this post the last one), then trade him for pitching, or outfield help, or other prospects, or you name it.

and how much trade value to you think a 20 YO hotshot SS prospect has anyway? It was brought up earlier that it took Russell, McKinney, Dan Strailey, and cash to get 1.5 years of a #2 starter and .5 years of a #4.

The only objective way to determine what a shortstop prospect is worth in trade is to see what shortstop prospects have brought back in return.

Now THAT'S disingenuous. As I already said, that trade was universally panned. I could go pick out the very best veteran-for-prospect trade return, and pretend that represented the going rate for prospects, but why would someone analyze that way (other than trying to blow smoke on the internet)?

Also, I don't see Torres as an 'elite' hitting prospect, certainly not one who brings back a young 300-game winner-to-be. You'd need a young Mike Trout for that.

Obviously you can't know someone is going to win 300 games, so I was obviously referring to someone with the potential to win 300 games.

Terrible trade. Gonna have to leave it there.
   81. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 18, 2017 at 08:40 PM (#5419374)
Terrible trade. Gonna have to leave it there.


Eh. You look at Torres and apparently see a future Willie Mays. I look at him and see a future Dave Concepcion if he's very lucky. I'm not going to lost any sleep over losing a potential Dave Concepcion when we have the real thing already.
   82. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: March 19, 2017 at 11:16 AM (#5419498)
But he's 68!
   83. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 19, 2017 at 03:57 PM (#5419578)
Torres just hit a rope to left for an 8th inning pinch-hit single. Who could not be impressed?#springtrainingoptimism
   84. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 19, 2017 at 07:30 PM (#5419641)
I gotta say, I'd have gone through a few dozen names before I came up with Dave Concepcion as a comp.
   85. The Good Face Posted: March 20, 2017 at 10:23 AM (#5419759)
I gotta say, I'd have gone through a few dozen names before I came up with Dave Concepcion as a comp.


Also, Dave Concepcion had ~40 career WAR. Granted he played a long time, but there were 7 seasons of 3+ WAR in there. During his prime he was a really nice player, averaged 3.7 WAR per year during a 10 year stretch. There are worse fates than trading for the second coming of Dave Concepcion.
   86. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 20, 2017 at 03:52 PM (#5420121)
Torres comes in at SS in 6th today, and hits 2-run double in 8th. Looking good, in limited role.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogLCS OMNICHATTER for October 18, 2017
(463 - 3:02am, Oct 19)
Last: SouthSideRyan

NewsblogOT: New Season August 2017 Soccer Thread
(1165 - 2:11am, Oct 19)
Last: Dale Sams

Gonfalon CubsFive minute Los Angeles Dodgers Preview
(65 - 1:48am, Oct 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogAfter Yasiel Puig tried and failed to avoid Javy Baez's tag, Baez teased him and they both laughed | MLB.com
(32 - 1:26am, Oct 19)
Last: Voodoo

NewsblogOTP 16 October 2017: Sorry, Yankee fans: Trump’s claim that he can ensure victory simply isn’t true
(1136 - 1:17am, Oct 19)
Last: PepTech

Gonfalon CubsFive minute Washington National Preview
(182 - 12:32am, Oct 19)
Last: Meatwad in 7

NewsblogAngell: Yanks Get Even
(5 - 11:47pm, Oct 18)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(335 - 11:11pm, Oct 18)
Last: Mike A

NewsblogYankees even ALCS with late rally vs. Astros | MLB.com
(97 - 10:52pm, Oct 18)
Last: Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB)

NewsblogMemes roast Astros after unexpected loss to New York Yankees - Houston Chronicle
(10 - 9:45pm, Oct 18)
Last: rconn23

NewsblogDo the Cubs realize how badly the Dodgers insulted them on national TV? - Chicago Tribune
(31 - 8:58pm, Oct 18)
Last: Voodoo

NewsblogDallas Keuchel embraces the ‘calmness’ of being Yankees killer | New York Post
(2 - 8:48pm, Oct 18)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogOT - 2017 NFL thread
(139 - 6:22pm, Oct 18)
Last: zenbitz

NewsblogThe story behind Los Angeles Dodgers utility man Chris Taylor's unbelievable season
(13 - 6:16pm, Oct 18)
Last: Omineca Greg

NewsblogDodgers aren’t showing any shortcomings even without Corey Seager | LA Times
(11 - 4:34pm, Oct 18)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 0.8126 seconds
47 querie(s) executed