International News, Rumor and Signing Thread

Southcack77 said:
I don't really think that Wood and Peraza were all that valuable in the market. But then I never thought that much of Wood or Peraza.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter what you thought of them personally, they both had quite a bit of value as trade chips, and that's why the trade was a big deal. Even if they wouldn't necessarily have gotten a ton by themselves in trade we could have gotten something nice if we packaged them in a larger trade. For instance, we probably could have sent Wood and Viz in a really nice trade with the Astros this past offseason, or made a mega trade with Freddie and Wood (and possibly Viz) if we had so chose. Obviously Wood got injured, but a 3rd starter with a ton of control left has a bunch of value.

And we could have likely traded Peraza by himself for the Reds 35th pick ( or made our own deal with the Marlins without including the Dodgers if worst came to worst), so it's not like we would have lost Wentz either way.
 
auyushu said:
It really doesn't matter what you thought of them personally, they both had quite a bit of value as trade chips, and that's why the trade was a big deal. Even if they wouldn't necessarily have gotten a ton by themselves in trade we could have gotten something nice if we packaged them in a larger trade. For instance, we probably could have sent Wood and Viz in a really nice trade with the Astros this past offseason, or made a mega trade with Freddie and Wood (and possibly Viz) if we had so chose. Obviously Wood got injured, but a 3rd starter with a ton of control left has a bunch of value.

And we could have likely traded Peraza by himself for the Reds 35th pick ( or made our own deal with the Marlins without including the Dodgers if worst came to worst), so it's not like we would have lost Wentz either way.
Click to expand...

They obviously had value, but it seems from reports that what we valued them as on this site simply isn't what the league valued them as. That doesn't make the trade ok, but I do think people should accept the fact that there th perceived value simply wasn't there.
 
Carp said:
They obviously had value, but it seems from reports that what we valued them as on this site simply isn't what the league valued them as. That doesn't make the trade ok, but I do think people should accept the fact that there th perceived value simply wasn't there.
Click to expand...

the reports?
 
clvclv said:
Sure he has - if you're a stathead.

Sorry - looong week, couldn't help myself.
Click to expand...

I think his impact is greater than that. His decisions lead to those A's teams success which prompted other teams to take notice (particularly the Red Sox, Rays and others) The Sox tried to lure him away and failed so they brought in their own "Beane" in Theo Epstein and they hired Bill James as a consultant and followed the saber principles of finding hidden value. Then they win 3 WS after 86 years of failure. I think the saber revolution inside the game itself, regardless of fans, can be traced back to that 20 consecutive wins team Beane put together. That's a pretty big impact on the game as a whole. Even stubborn teams who initially rejected modern metrics (like the Braves) now employ a metrics team and use their own created stats as well as use those developed by others to try and understand player production and value.

Beane's biggest problem is everyone else caught up. He's no longer a step ahead on finding market inefficiencies any longer.
 
chop2chip said:
Throw down your weapons. The statheads won long ago
Click to expand...

I have always been amused by being called a "stathead" because aren't traditional stat people ALSO statheads? Just using older ,more antiquated and less accurate stats to make their claims?
 
auyushu said:
It really doesn't matter what you thought of them personally, they both had quite a bit of value as trade chips, and that's why the trade was a big deal. Even if they wouldn't necessarily have gotten a ton by themselves in trade we could have gotten something nice if we packaged them in a larger trade. For instance, we probably could have sent Wood and Viz in a really nice trade with the Astros this past offseason, or made a mega trade with Freddie and Wood (and possibly Viz) if we had so chose. Obviously Wood got injured, but a 3rd starter with a ton of control left has a bunch of value.

And we could have likely traded Peraza by himself for the Reds 35th pick ( or made our own deal with the Marlins without including the Dodgers if worst came to worst), so it's not like we would have lost Wentz either way.
Click to expand...

I mean, I know it doesn't matter what I thought of them.

I just doubt a little bit that they were that highly valued by major league teams.

To me, Wood was a fourth or fifth starter, which has value, and Peraza was a 2B prospect without power who didn't walk.

Sadly, we will never know what the opportunity cost in terms of trade for those two guys were. I think maybe you have it too high. Maybe I have it too low.
 
Southcack77 said:
I think maybe you have it too high. Maybe I have it too low.
Click to expand...

I know one thing for sure, if you seriously think a guy with a career ERA in the 3.3 range (FIP in the same area as well) is a 4th or 5th starter your grasp of what entails a 4th or 5th starter at the major league level needs a bit of work. A 4th starter is someone in the 4.25ish range and the average 5th starter is more around the 4.5 range.

I agree with you about Peraza, but either way they had a good deal of value as trade chips, and we gave them up in a garbage trade. Our FO fell in love with a horrible player in Olivera and made a dumb trade, end of story really. Hopefully they don't make more of them going forward.
 
auyushu said:
I know one thing for sure, if you seriously think a guy with a career ERA in the 3.3 range (FIP in the same area as well) is a 4th or 5th starter your grasp of what entails a 4th or 5th starter at the major league level needs a bit of work. A 4th starter is someone in the 4.25ish range and the average 5th starter is more around the 4.5 range.

I agree with you about Peraza, but either way they had a good deal of value as trade chips, and we gave them up in a garbage trade. Our FO fell in love with a horrible player in Olivera and made a dumb trade, end of story really. Hopefully they don't make more of them going forward.
Click to expand...

Basically, he had a 1.5 year track record before 2015. 2014, he put up very strong ERA in first full season, but FIP indicated he was a bit fortunate.

In 2015, his K rate slipped quite a bit as did his ERA. He was a known injury risk due to the delivery, which was also benefitted from being somewhat funky and deceptive. I had a pretty good sense that he was on borrower time and I personally never thought he is a top 3 rotation piece for a true contender.

2016 has seen his slide continue with predicted injury concerns popping up.

I just never quite bought it with Wood and I'm not sure that he was widely perceived as being a top of the rotation piece around baseball.

Fair to say the FO misjudged Oliveira, but still not clear the Braves lost the deal. I think the Braves sold Wood a little bit after the height of his value, but just before the bottom dropped out.
 
Southcack77 said:
Basically, he had a 1.5 year track record before 2015. 2014, he put up very strong ERA in first full season, but FIP indicated he was a bit fortunate.
Click to expand...

:FrediWut:

A bit fortunate, as in he had a 2.78 ERA rather than 3.25? Hah. If you are paying attention to FIP then you know he was super unfortunate this year and a bit unfortunate last year. You can't have it both ways there. He was pitching lights out this year before injury.

We sold Wood low, period. He would have had quite a bit of value this past offseason when pitchers with worse stats and track records than him were going for big money.

I by no means wanted to see us keep him long term, be if we had held on to him for a few more months we could have packaged him together with another player and gotten quite a haul. Wood + Inciarte or Viz could have gotten us a bunch from the Astros this past offseason. As it is we got pretty much nothing for him.
 
bravos4evr said:
I think his impact is greater than that. His decisions lead to those A's teams success which prompted other teams to take notice (particularly the Red Sox, Rays and others) The Sox tried to lure him away and failed so they brought in their own "Beane" in Theo Epstein and they hired Bill James as a consultant and followed the saber principles of finding hidden value. Then they win 3 WS after 86 years of failure. I think the saber revolution inside the game itself, regardless of fans, can be traced back to that 20 consecutive wins team Beane put together. That's a pretty big impact on the game as a whole. Even stubborn teams who initially rejected modern metrics (like the Braves) now employ a metrics team and use their own created stats as well as use those developed by others to try and understand player production and value.

Beane's biggest problem is everyone else caught up. He's no longer a step ahead on finding market inefficiencies any longer.
Click to expand...

No need to "defend" Beane, James, or any of the other pioneers of the "new math". If you're able to maintain even a somewhat neutral outlook, you'll find that most of us "old-timers" really only speak up or resist when we feel like someone's the next coming of Matthew Lillard in "Trouble With The Curve".
 
Southcack77 said:
Basically, he had a 1.5 year track record before 2015. 2014, he put up very strong ERA in first full season, but FIP indicated he was a bit fortunate.

In 2015, his K rate slipped quite a bit as did his ERA. He was a known injury risk due to the delivery, which was also benefitted from being somewhat funky and deceptive. I had a pretty good sense that he was on borrower time and I personally never thought he is a top 3 rotation piece for a true contender.

2016 has seen his slide continue with predicted injury concerns popping up.

I just never quite bought it with Wood and I'm not sure that he was widely perceived as being a top of the rotation piece around baseball.

Fair to say the FO misjudged Oliveira, but still not clear the Braves lost the deal. I think the Braves sold Wood a little bit after the height of his value, but just before the bottom dropped out.
Click to expand...

I still can't figure out why WAR gives Wood so much credit. I just don't think guys who can't go deep into games are all that great. He's essentially a 5-inning pitcher, and he may never top 200 innings in a season.
 
yeezus said:
I still can't figure out why WAR gives Wood so much credit. I just don't think guys who can't go deep into games are all that great. He's essentially a 5-inning pitcher, and he may never top 200 innings in a season.
Click to expand...

Wood averaged 5.9 IP per start last year. So he was essentially a 6 IP per game pitcher, not 5. I'm not sure why this keeps coming up to try and say Wood wasn't a decent pitcher, there are very few pitchers that hit 200 IP. There were a whopping 28 pitchers that hit 200 IP last year, and 10 of those barely hit the mark. Most of those who hit 200 IP are Aces and #1 starters, or at the least top end #2 starters. Nobody has claimed Wood is that, so not sure why that's a knock against him.

If you seriously think that averaging 5.9 IP per start versus 6.1 IP per start makes the difference between Wood being a decent pitcher, I don't know what to really say there.
 
This will be the most exciting summer of baseball since the 2005 Rookie Call Ups Sparked the Division title run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top