Bullpen options

dballislife · Post #41 » by **dballislife** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:03 am

down to krod romo or soriano that can fill a big need

Nights King · Post #42 » by **Nights King** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:41 am

dballislife wrote:down to krod romo or soriano that can fill a big need

its not down to anybody
Forget free agents, minor leaguers, there are probably more than 300 relievers on major league 40 man rosters right now, you don't think any of them will be a decent trade fit?

Lateral Quicks · Post #43 » by **Lateral Quicks** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:18 am

Moxie wrote:I wonder if Pentecost becomes a trade piece for a higher-end reliever come January.

I would prefer to keep one of our catching prospects for a change. Unless they really don't like what they saw in a small sample last year it would be a big mistake IMO to trade a 1st round pick for relief help.

baulderdash77 · Post #44 » by **baulderdash77** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 1:00 am

I don't really get AA's logic with respect to the trade market.

He'd rather give up assets in a trade than sign a free agent. That's why they're FREE agents. However most of the guys he trades for were signed as free agents and could have been had without giving up assets. He seems to not get this logic.

I don't know why you'd make any moves on the trade market while there are good free agents out there to be had.

Santoki · Post #45 » by **Santoki** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 1:33 am

baulderdash77 wrote:I don't really get AA's logic with respect to the trade market.

He'd rather give up assets in a trade than sign a free agent. That's why they're FREE agents. However most of the guys he trades for were signed as free agents and could have been had without giving up assets. He seems to not get this logic.

I don't know why you'd make any moves on the trade market while there are good free agents out there to be had.

The logic is they don't have the money to sign good free agent relievers.

Post #46 » by **Schad** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 1:34 am

baulderdash77 wrote:I don't really get AA's logic with respect to the trade market.

He'd rather give up assets in a trade than sign a free agent. That's why they're FREE agents. However most of the guys he trades for were signed as free agents and could have been had without giving up assets. He seems to not get this logic.

I don't know why you'd make any moves on the trade market while there are good free agents out there to be had.

Age, salary, years of control, etc. Not necessarily the case here, but some teams are hyperspecific about the attributes they want...when "a reliever" becomes "a right-handed reliever making less than $5m a year with fairly neutral splits who has pitched well against AL East opponents and features a low HR rate and a walk rate below 3 BB/9 and also is a unicorn" or whatever, the trade market can provide more options.

Michael Bradley · Post #47 » by **Michael Bradley** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:45 am

At the end of last season I said it wouldn't surprise me if Sanchez never starts a game for the Jays. With each passing day and no reliever in sight, I think they are slowly going to try to justify Sanchez as the closer with Norris as the #5 guy. I think that's absolutely the wrong way to go but I could see it happening if AA strikes out on whatever reliever he seems to be after. AA is making this more complicated than it should be. Signing relievers is the easy part, especially when compared to what has has done the rest of the off-season.

Wo1verine · Post #48 » by **Wo1verine** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 5:17 am

Wilton Lopez was signed to minor league deal:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... wi01.shtml

Probably a very good chance he makes the team.

Randle McMurphy · Post #49 » by **Randle McMurphy** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 6:45 am

Wo1verine wrote:Wilton Lopez was signed to minor league deal:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... wi01.shtml

Probably a very good chance he makes the team.

Like it, he has great career peripherals (6.51 K9, 1.68 BB9, 54.1 GB%). That's exactly the kind of signing they should be making for the bullpen.

From 2010-2013, Wilton Lopez had a 3.03 ERA, 3.09 FIP, 3.20 xFIP with 3.5 WAR. And the 6 innings he pitched in MLB last year are hardly much to go on (although his elbow is apparently suspect, which is probably a major reason he didn't get any MLB offers). Gregerson was 2.78, 3.06, and 3.29 with a 2.9 WAR in the same years in comparison.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?p ... ort=19%2cd

baulderdash77 · Post #50 » by **baulderdash77** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 6:02 pm

Lopez is a good no risk, medium reward guy for us. If he bounces back then we have a lights out setup man. If he doesn't then at least there's a reliever in Buffalo.

Between Lopez and Delebar I expect that one of them will bounce back for us and contribute. At least we're getting closer to depth.

baulderdash77 · Post #51 » by **baulderdash77** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 6:05 pm

Santoki wrote:
baulderdash77 wrote:I don't really get AA's logic with respect to the trade market.

He'd rather give up assets in a trade than sign a free agent. That's why they're FREE agents. However most of the guys he trades for were signed as free agents and could have been had without giving up assets. He seems to not get this logic.

I don't know why you'd make any moves on the trade market while there are good free agents out there to be had.

The logic is they don't have the money to sign good free agent relievers.

But it's not necessarily limited to just this circumstance.

We considered the deals for Buehrle and Reyes too expensive as free agents; but then one year later we traded major assets to get the same contracts and players. That's the type of thing I'm talking about when it comes to AA and free agency. Dickey is the same situation.

Randle McMurphy · Post #52 » by **Randle McMurphy** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 6:50 pm

baulderdash77 wrote:
Santoki wrote:
baulderdash77 wrote:I don't really get AA's logic with respect to the trade market.

He'd rather give up assets in a trade than sign a free agent. That's why they're FREE agents. However most of the guys he trades for were signed as free agents and could have been had without giving up assets. He seems to not get this logic.

I don't know why you'd make any moves on the trade market while there are good free agents out there to be had.

The logic is they don't have the money to sign good free agent relievers.

But it's not necessarily limited to just this circumstance.

We considered the deals for Buehrle and Reyes too expensive as free agents; but then one year later we traded major assets to get the same contracts and players. That's the type of thing I'm talking about when it comes to AA and free agency. Dickey is the same situation.

Dickey was never a free agent. He's also on a very reasonable contract.

With Buehrle and Reyes, you have to keep in mind it would have taken more (and maybe even significantly more) than what the Marlins offered for either of them to come to Toronto. And those contracts were already sizable. There is also no reason to believe there was any money available to even make such signings before the 2012 offseason.

Skin Blues · Post #53 » by **Skin Blues** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:17 pm

baulderdash77 wrote:
Santoki wrote:
baulderdash77 wrote:I don't really get AA's logic with respect to the trade market.

He'd rather give up assets in a trade than sign a free agent. That's why they're FREE agents. However most of the guys he trades for were signed as free agents and could have been had without giving up assets. He seems to not get this logic.

I don't know why you'd make any moves on the trade market while there are good free agents out there to be had.

The logic is they don't have the money to sign good free agent relievers.

But it's not necessarily limited to just this circumstance.

We considered the deals for Buehrle and Reyes too expensive as free agents; but then one year later we traded major assets to get the same contracts and players. That's the type of thing I'm talking about when it comes to AA and free agency. Dickey is the same situation.

We took Buehrle as a favour for the Marlins. They got the one cheap year from him and wanted no part of the backloaded portion of that contract when his annual salary more than tripled. The assets we gave Miami were primarily for Josh Johnson and to a lesser extent Reyes, who they also had for one cheap year and unloaded him before his annual salary more than doubled in the final 4 years of his contract, from $10M to $22M.

What I'm saying is we gave no major assets for Buehrle, and really, not a whole lot for Reyes. Sure we could have signed them ourselves the year earlier but a) we would have had to beat the Marlins' offer, not simply match it (and that's assuming either of Reyes or Buehrle would have been open to coming to Toronto at all) b) a year's worth of information can charge the course of action for a team and c) these become 4 and 6 year contracts (ie: less risk) by trading for them rather than signing them.

As for Dickey, I don't see how anybody can complain about that trade. He's worth many millions more than we're paying him. He's already earned more than the entire 3 years of his guaranteed contract with us even if he doesn't throw a pitch this year, and we have a team option for $11M for next season, to boot. And as was already mentioned, he wasn't a free agent. We had no option to sign him to his current team-friendly contract without giving up major assets.

flatjacket1 · Post #54 » by **flatjacket1** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:52 pm

IIRC AA said Buehrle was a deal maker. I'm pretty sure we asked for him.

I agree with what you just said, I believe it is much more logical but I'm not sure if that is what actually happened.

Although the Dickey deal was team-friendly, giving up what we did for a guy we are paying a decent chunk of change isn't exactly brilliant by any stretch. If we waited for him to hit FA I'm sure we would have got him for like 18M/annually which is a lot, but 6M annually to keep Syndergaard and d'Arnaud? Yes.

Again I like Dickey, but that trade was one I could live without, never really supported it.

baulderdash77 · Post #55 » by **baulderdash77** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:24 pm

The Marlins trade cost us some serious assets though for players who are making big salary now.

Wouldn't you rather have had an extra $40 million of free agent production plus Henderson Alvarez than Buerhle (who has delivered as promised) and Reyes (who is now in decline)? Hendo has been one of the pitching best pitching deals in baseball over the last 2 years with 6.5 WAR for the league minimum.

I'm just saying for an asset management perspective it's a better deal to use the free agent market instead of the trade market. Right now there are plenty of good relievers and guys who can play 2B on the market that we can get without having to give up anything. There's no reason to trade any assets at all when they can be had for nothing.

Also don't buy that crap about budget concerns. Beeston said the team is willing to go up to $150 million a few weeks ago. We're probably not even at $120 million so there's lots of budget available.

suntzuballin · Post #56 » by **suntzuballin** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:46 pm

Michael Bradley wrote:At the end of last season I said it wouldn't surprise me if Sanchez never starts a game for the Jays. With each passing day and no reliever in sight, I think they are slowly going to try to justify Sanchez as the closer with Norris as the #5 guy. I think that's absolutely the wrong way to go but I could see it happening if AA strikes out on whatever reliever he seems to be after. AA is making this more complicated than it should be. Signing relievers is the easy part, especially when compared to what has has done the rest of the off-season.

if he is gonna be the closer, he should startout as a set up man first.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using RealGM Forums mobile app

Raps in 4 · Post #57 » by **Raps in 4** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:22 pm

baulderdash77 wrote:Also don't buy that crap about budget concerns. Beeston said the team is willing to go up to $150 million a few weeks ago. We're probably not even at $120 million so there's lots of budget available.

You must be very naive then.

Komodo · Post #58 » by **Komodo** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:29 pm

Raps in 4 wrote:
baulderdash77 wrote:Also don't buy that crap about budget concerns. Beeston said the team is willing to go up to $150 million a few weeks ago. We're probably not even at $120 million so there's lots of budget available.

You must be very naive then.

Agreed. It's why our biggest addition since the flurry of activity has been... Wilton Lopez. A nice little move I'll add, but c'mon. We all know how it is. Shields should be ours, but he'll end up in Boston. We missed out on pretty much all the bigger name relievers.

Post #59 » by **Rhettmatic** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:59 am

Komodo wrote:
Raps in 4 wrote:
baulderdash77 wrote:Also don't buy that crap about budget concerns. Beeston said the team is willing to go up to $150 million a few weeks ago. We're probably not even at $120 million so there's lots of budget available.

You must be very naive then.

Agreed. It's why our biggest addition since the flurry of activity has been... Wilton Lopez. A nice little move I'll add, but c'mon. We all know how it is. Shields should be ours, but he'll end up in Boston. We missed out on pretty much all the bigger name relievers.

I hate Rogers as much as anyone, but considering that we do have a budget, "big name relievers" are kind of what we should be avoiding no?

It does bother me that they haven't and probably won't add another solid starter though, and we obviously need to upgrade the bullpen. But I would be pretty nervous throwing money at relievers.

Generally I feel like "big name reliever" is on the "discounted sushi" end of a spectrum of things I think you should avoid.

Randle McMurphy · Post #60 » by **Randle McMurphy** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 4:54 am

baulderdash77 wrote:Also don't buy that crap about budget concerns. Beeston said the team is willing to go up to $150 million a few weeks ago. We're probably not even at $120 million so there's lots of budget available.

AA wasn't even allowed to take on any salary at the deadline 6 months ago with a contending team exactly because of budget concerns.