Team by team analysis of Fielder trade partners

[LouisEly]

Yeah, a 99 OPS+ is good if you are a SS, C, or even CF. Not so good if you are a 1B - I'm too lazy to look it up but I'm pretty sure that the average 1B OPS+ is more like 115. Votto is 174, Pujols is 173, Gonzales is 152, Dunn is 138, Fielder is 137, Howard is 128,

[thebruce44]

Hitters who strike out at a very high rate, however, will struggle to be productive hitters.

Adam Dunn, Colby Rasmus, Adam LaRoche, the Uptons, Ryan Howard, Weeks, Kemp, Big Pappi, Austin Jackson, David Wright, Jay Bruce, Jayson Werth, Kelly Johnson, and Dan Uggla strongly disagree with you.

[804Sox]

And Mark Reynolds remains silent . . .

[kramnoj]

Post 26 really isn't good, as 27 supports. Players with very high strikeout rates will fail to be major leaguers for long, because if you strike out too much, you won't get enough opportunities to walk, and you won't have enough opportunities to make contact to get on base enough. If you hit with enough power, that can make up for some of it.

 

Listing the strikeout leaders, while conspicuously excluding the actual NL leader is weak. Those are the players that are able to strike out at a high amount while being productive.

 

The creator of ZiPs projected Gamel to do poorly as a major league hitter this year because he had struck out around a third of the time in both the minors and the majors. Gamel did better this year in the minors than last year, and I don't think it's a coincidence that his strikeout rate dropped.

[RockCoCougars]

If you make and out and don't put the ball in play, nothing good can result.

 

A K is better than a DP.

 

Strikeouts for hitters in moderation aren't significantly worse than an out on contact. Hitters who strike out at a very high rate, however, will struggle to be productive hitters.

Point taken. You also have to consider that GDP's are partially (but not completely) canceled out by fielding errors. For example, one grounder to short could be a 6-4-3 DP, and the shortstop could throw one into the dugout. I would also say that the value of moving runners along (generally from 2nd to 3rd or scoring from 3rd on groundballs) would cancel out the GDP's somewhat as well.

 

Obviously power guys have a little more leeway with strikeouts. A guy who hits less than 15 homers and strikes out more than 100 times a year won't be sticking around very long. Most power guys tend to fan a lot, but I wonder who has the lowest number of strikeouts per home run in a career of 10,000 PA? I'll have to do some checking.

[RockCoCougars]

A quick Google search revealed that Joe DiMaggio has the lowest strikeout/home run ratio of players with 200 career home runs of 1.02 (in about 7600 PA). That's insane.

[thebruce44]

Post 26 really isn't good, as 27 supports.

 

Listing the strikeout leaders, while conspicuously excluding the actual NL leader is weak. Those are the players that are able to strike out at a high amount while being productive.

Or it shows that there is little to no correlation between strikouts and offensive numbers (besides SLG, which seems to rise as strikout rates do). The info is all in this thread for you guys to read, yet you keep repeating that guys who strikeout will fail to be MLB players for long.

 

Sorry, but as post 26 shows, thats just not true. Showing a single player who isn't good and strikesout a lot doesn't prove your argument. It just shows that some posters aren't grasping the point.

[kramnoj]

The info is all in this thread for you guys to read, yet you keep repeating that guys who strikeout will fail to be MLB players for long.

 

If this is what you think I wrote, you didn't actually read my posts, you chose to read what you wanted. I used the word very high deliberately. Players who strike out too much will fail to be good major league players. There are players who strike out at a high rate who can be very productive players. But there is a limit.

Edit:

I used to believe in the theory that strikeouts don't matter at all, until I saw a poster by the name of Walt Davis over at bbtf talk about on-contact numbers. For an example of one discussion regarding strikeouts and on-contact numbers, read his post 86 at http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/2010_zips_projections_toronto_blue_jays/

I would quote the discussion I like, but this thread is about Fielder and should return to that discussion.

[JohnBriggs12]

Getting back to the analysis of potential trade partners, Mark Gonzales in today's Chicago Tribune has an article headlined "Finding productive left-handed hitter tops Sox to-do list". I don't have link but the article suggests the Sox intend to move Chris Sale, their 2010 first round pick that was lights out of the pen in August and September to the rotation next year. If they do that and Peavy is healthy, they would have an extra arm to deal.

 

I'm sure the first choice of the Brewers for that "extra arm" would be John Danks. Danks has put up numbers of a very strong #2 type starter. In fact, in many respects, he's been the ace of the Sox staff the last 2 years. For that reason, I'm thinking the Sox would prefer dealing either Gavin Floyd or Edwin Jackson. While Jackson pitched very well down the stretch, he's a FA after 2011. Ironically, the Sox got him for Daniel Hudson, whom the Brewers turned down for Fielder.

 

That leaves Gavin Floyd. Floyd's numbers aren't bad. They probably translate to an ERA in the NL of around 3.80. His stuff is pretty good too with a fastball in the 92-93 range. He also throws a slider and a curve that can be very good and an occasional change. Of concern was that he was shut down early this year with some shoulder tightness though test revealed no real damage. It's also some concern that until he started working with Don Cooper, he had been seen as a bit of a bust in Philly. He is signed through 2012 at a reasonable rate ($5 million in 2011, $7 million in 2012) with a $9.5 million option for 2013. While I wouldn't be too excited about Floyd, he's at least a solid #3 for most teams provided he stays healthy. Perhaps if the Sox threw in another player, I could see a match.

[thebruce44]

kramnoj[/b]]The info is all in this thread for you guys to read, yet you keep repeating that guys who strikeout will fail to be MLB players for long.

 

If this is what you think I wrote, you didn't actually read my posts, you chose to read what you wanted. I used the word very high deliberately. Players who strike out too much will fail to be good major league players. There are players who strike out at a high rate who can be very productive players. But there is a limit.

Fair enough. When you posted

 

"Hitters who strike out at a very high rate, however, will struggle to be productive hitters" and "Players with very high strikeout rates will fail to be major leaguers for long, because if you strike out too much, you won't get enough opportunities to walk, and you won't have enough opportunities to make contact to get on base enough"

 

I guess I took it as a blanket statement that all hitters who strike out a lot will struggle when history has shown that to be false, as evidenced by the many exceptions from post 26. Perhaps your definition of "a lot" is different than mine, which would include players like Adam Dunn, Ryan Howard, and yes, Mark Reynolds who have been productive.

 

But yea, sorry to get so off topic.

[kramnoj]

perhaps your definition of "a lot" is different than mine

 

I never used "a lot", which shows that you didn't actually read what I wrote. You saw something that didn't align with your dogma and chose to disagree with it.

 

If you are going to accuse others of not grasping the point, you should actually make sure that you are grasping theirs.

[thebruce44]

I guess I consider "a lot" and "very high rate" to be synonyms. Sorry for the confusion. Glad to see we have similar view points on strikeouts in the end.

[Bnowell4evr]

Getting back to the analysis of potential trade partners, Mark Gonzales in today's Chicago Tribune has an article headlined "Finding productive left-handed hitter tops Sox to-do list". I don't have link but the article suggests the Sox intend to move Chris Sale, their 2010 first round pick that was lights out of the pen in August and September to the rotation next year. If they do that and Peavy is healthy, they would have an extra arm to deal.

 

I'm sure the first choice of the Brewers for that "extra arm" would be John Danks. Danks has put up numbers of a very strong #2 type starter. In fact, in many respects, he's been the ace of the Sox staff the last 2 years. For that reason, I'm thinking the Sox would prefer dealing either Gavin Floyd or Edwin Jackson. While Jackson pitched very well down the stretch, he's a FA after 2011. Ironically, the Sox got him for Daniel Hudson, whom the Brewers turned down for Fielder.

 

That leaves Gavin Floyd. Floyd's numbers aren't bad. They probably translate to an ERA in the NL of around 3.80. His stuff is pretty good too with a fastball in the 92-93 range. He also throws a slider and a curve that can be very good and an occasional change. Of concern was that he was shut down early this year with some shoulder tightness though test revealed no real damage. It's also some concern that until he started working with Don Cooper, he had been seen as a bit of a bust in Philly. He is signed through 2012 at a reasonable rate ($5 million in 2011, $7 million in 2012) with a $9.5 million option for 2013. While I wouldn't be too excited about Floyd, he's at least a solid #3 for most teams provided he stays healthy. Perhaps if the Sox threw in another player, I could see a match.

Ive thought all along that Gavin Floyd would be the guy we most likely landed. If Melvin could somehow land Zack Greinke for a deal around Brett Lawrie our rotation goes from awful to exceptional.

[Never Outhustled]

Toronto absolutely belongs on this list. They have a ton of JP Riccardi's mistakes coming off the books. They're in great financial shape, they could have excess starting pitching with the return of Dustin McGowan, they have no 1B for next year, and have an aggressive GM.

[JohnBriggs12]

Toronto absolutely belongs on this list. They have a ton of JP Riccardi's mistakes coming off the books. They're in great financial shape, they could have excess starting pitching with the return of Dustin McGowan, they have no 1B for next year, and have an aggressive GM.

I don't see them allocating their resources for another bat. They led all of baseball by a wide margin in HR and Overbay's 20 aren't all that hard to replace. Conversely they were 11th in the AL in ERA, so I suspect any excess in pitching will be used to improve the quality of the pitching.

[brewmann04]

sound very intresting think we should find some teams intrested in Prince

[kramnoj]

Toronto absolutely belongs on this list. They have a ton of JP Riccardi's mistakes coming off the books. They're in great financial shape

 

It's true that Toronto has lots of money coming off the books, but they have only 4 players with guaranteed contracts next year. But they have 12 players who are arbitration eligible and according to the blunt averages compiled by bref, those players would generally cost around $47M. Combine that with the players under contract, and Toronto is over last years payroll.

 

Granted, I've looked at this for 2 minutes, and haven't really figured if the averages are way off or how many will be non tendered, but at first glance, I'm not seeing the same thing you are with Toronto.

[logan82]

We can pick up part of Fielder's contract if the return is right. Don't forget that.

[kramnoj]

Well, sure. But if Toronto is in great financial shape, there wouldn't be an obvious need to do that. They presumably would rather pay money they have than give up a prospect in exchange for money coming in the deal.

[logan82]

What I am saying is that we shouldn't eliminate a team just based on financial considerations.

[paul253]

There was some talk earlier about Seattle. I would love to get Michael Pineda for Fielder. The guy dominated in AA and had very good secondary numbers is AAA with a 79/17 so/bb rate, though he gave up a lot of home runs, in 62.1 innings. I'm not sure if he'd be ready to start in Milwaukee right away, but can you imagine a Nashville rotation of Rogers, Jeffress, Pineda. and Rivas? Seattle's offense was horrible last year and Jack Z. may feel some pressure to improve it in a hurry. Fielder could obviously do that. Pitching was their strength and they could probably afford to trade away a prospect. I know they just got Smoak but Fielder would be a major improvement over anyone they trotted out last year at first base or at DH.

[JohnBriggs12]

A hot postseason by Lance Berkman could hurt the market for Fielder.

[logan82]

I think we are probably better off trading McGehee or Gamel. They will probably bring a bigger return and once Fielder leaves we can just slot Lawrie in and shuffle guys around to find our best defensive alignment. I would prefer to trade McGehee because I think Gamel will be a much better player and he is younger. We could extend him and buy out a few FA years if he is good enough. McGehee has one less year of service time and it would make little or no sense to extend him since he will be 32 to start the season in his first year of FA.

[thebruce44]

I think we are probably better off trading McGehee or Gamel. They will probably bring a bigger return and once Fielder leaves we can just slot Lawrie in and shuffle guys around to find our best defensive alignment. I would prefer to trade McGehee because I think Gamel will be a much better player and he is younger. We could extend him and buy out a few FA years if he is good enough. McGehee has one less year of service time and it would make little or no sense to extend him since he will be 32 to start the season in his first year of FA.

I agree with the idea to trade McGehee, but at the same time I don't think that means we shouldn't trade Fielder as well.

 

[logan82]

It really depends on the return. Of course it does in any trade but Fielder should at least bring some nice comp pics. I don't want to trade him for a guy who will only be around a year or two. Unfortunately I think that is all he might bring back. Either that or a long term low ceiling guy.