Alright, When did Carlos Gomez turn into Adam Jones lite?

[EdgarDiazRocks]

Realized watching this week that I no longer have to switch games when Gomez came to the plate....indeed i was actually enjoying watching him hit...righthanders even! When did this happen?

 

I suppose this means we're gonna have to pay him now...

[Invader3K]

Realized watching this week that I no longer have to switch games when Gomez came to the plate....indeed i was actually enjoying watching him hit...righthanders even! When did this happen?

 

I suppose this means we're gonna have to pay him now...

 

They're basically just letting him "be Carlos Gomez" at the plate and not trying to have him hit high in the order like earlier in the season. Seems to be working.

 

As far as paying him, I'm still not sure. The team does have other options for center field.

[EdgarDiazRocks]

not trying to have him hit high in the order like earlier in the season. Seems to be working.

 

Splits reveal 2nd in order .262/.321/.483 6HR in 163PA

 

7th .316/.343/.579 7HR in 100PA

 

That first line ain't so bad.

[jerichoholicninja]

He still doesn't have a clue at the plate. He takes pitches down the middle and swings at balls at his head. It just happens the ball is running into his bat more often when he swings.

[reillymcshane]

I'm not convinced Carlos has turned a corner. He's had a very good year, and I'm happy to have him in 2013. I just don't know if what he's doing is sustainable. His approach at the plate seems like he's guessing. Perhaps I'm wrong. But I worry it's a nice run of a few months - something lots of guys do at some point in their career. To try and project that going forward - after so many years of much worse - is a huge risk.

 

I'm good with him going into 2013 as the starting CF. If he sustains his play, great. If not, we have alternatives, such as Aoki and Schafer.

 

However, I wouldn't be adverse to the team seeing what they could get for him on the trade market. Carlos is a FA after 2013, and with Boros as an agent, i highly doubt he'll be looking to signing a reasonable contract extension.

 

I think the hard thing about Carlos is giving him a price tag. A lot of his value is in his defense. I've seen people float contract ideas - such as 'bill hall contract' and so forth. I cringe at those numbers, because i fear he'll simply regress to the Carlos Gomez of 2009-11 - a .650 OPS guy. Great defense, sure. But that along isn't worth $8 million a year on the open market.

 

So I'd be wary of any long term deal for Carlos. I guess the team could look into an extension if it reasonable - say 3 years and $12-15 million. But I don't think that will work for Carlos. Not with Boros as an agent. In that case, see what his trade value is. Or just keep him for 2013.

[endaround]

A Bill Hall type contract would be great, but that won't happen. He could end up being a 30/40 (or 50) guy over a full season. His OBP will still be terrible making him less valuable but he'll be paid like a typical 30/40 guy, ie a lot. We'll see how much Bourn gets this offseason. That will likely be Boras's starting point assuming Gomez doesn't implode in 2013. I agree in trying to trade him.

[Ennder]

He either figured out how to hit righties or he is just getting a little lucky against them. There hasn't been huge changes overall in his K rate or BB rate so I'm guessing this is more fluke than breakout. He still hurts the team anytime his defense isn't adding value and I'd rather not go into next season with him locked in as a full time starter.

[JohnBriggs12]

He's not unlike a young Mike Cameron, who took a while for his offensive ability to take hold. Cameron never hit for average, but had great power and could run. Cameron got more walks as pitchers respected his power. Gomez hasn't had that respect but he will start to get it and hopefully learn when guys are nibbling with him.

[logan82]

Not unlike Mike Cameron except that whole OBP thing.

[Baldkin]

Cameron, from 2002-2012 swung at 17.1% of balls outside the strike zone, and had an overall swing rate of 41.1%.

 

Gomez this season, on the other hand, is swinging at 36% of balls outside of the zone and has a 54.2% swing rate overall.

 

Cameron always walked, his career low BB% is higher than Gomez's career high. Respect had nothing to do with it. Saying that they are in any way shape or form comparable at the plate just isn't true.

[EdgarDiazRocks]

Gomez this season, on the other hand, is swinging at 36% of balls outside of the zone and has a 54.2% swing rate overall.

 

And Adam Jones is at 41.1% and 54.9% respectively. There is value here if you run into a few and play good defense.

[Baldkin]

I agree that there is value there, the big question is: is it reproducible.

 

He's hitting HR's on 14.3% of his flyballs (8.0% for his career) and he's hitting WAY more flyballs than he ever has before (GB/FB is 0.89, he's never been below 1.01 before).

[reillymcshane]

He's not unlike a young Mike Cameron, who took a while for his offensive ability to take hold.

I totally disagree with this. It's not saying Carlos isn't having a good year. But the Mike Cameron comp is off. They are so different - at least as batters.

 

Cameron always took walks at a pretty consistent rate of around 11%. His first year he had a 12.3% rate. Followed by 8.4% and 12.6%. These are for ages 24-26. Carlos' rates for those ages are 5.3, 5.8 and 4.7%. He's actually lower this year than the last few seasons.

 

This year, Carlos is the ranked 228 out of 230 in the number of pitches he takes per at bat (minimum of 300 ABs). His rate, by the way, has gotten worse over the past three years - falling from 3.57 pitchers per AB in 2010, to 3.48 in 2011 and 3.35 this year.

 

Cameron was nothing like this.

 

All these numbers scare me that this year is a fluke. Perhaps he's simply matured a bit - gotten a little stronger, a little quicker with the bat, allowing him to drive the ball a bit better. If that's the case, his ceiling is probably what we are seeing. .250-260, 20 HR, .300 OBP. Excellent defense. Nothing wrong with that. It's quite valuable. But I just don't know if it's real.

[jerichoholicninja]

So for those who complain about Melvin never selling high on a player, do you trade Gomez this offseason? I personally would because I feel this year is a fluke and he's a free agent after next season anyway.

[trwi7]

So for those who complain about Melvin never selling high on a player, do you trade Gomez this offseason? I personally would because I feel this year is a fluke and he's a free agent after next season anyway.

 

I absolutely would. I would not give him any sort of contract extension unless it was massively beneficial to the Brewers.

[rluzinski]

I think the notion of "selling high" is overblown. MLB franchises know to look at how the player has performed over more than just the previous season. Also, it's not like Gomez is hitting THAT much better than in the past:

 

Gomez, career:.244/.292/.375

Gomez, 2012:.251/.298/.458

 

Just eyeballing that and knowing he's still young, I'd guess something like .250/.300/.425 for him next year. Let's see what his ZiPS projection sits at right now:

 

Gomez projection: .240/.296/.440

 

Is the expectation that some team will think Gomez will perform even better next year that what he's done this year?

[monty57]

Is the expectation that some team will think Gomez will perform even better next year that what he's done this year?

 

"Selling high" is probably more of a belief that the player is going to crash. If you think Gomez is going to fall back to his old numbers, and you can trade him for the value of someone who is going to continue to play at his current level, then you trade him. If you are right, then you "sold high" and got more than he's really worth. If you are wrong, then you missed out on retaining a good player, but should have some talent in return which hopefully will pan out.

 

"Selling low" would be trading someone who is playing below their normal level because you think he's "lost it." If you are right, you got rid of a bad player and his contract. If you are wrong, then you gave away a valueable player for nothing.

[jerichoholicninja]

Is the expectation that some team will think Gomez will perform even better next year that what he's done this year?

 

A lot of posters here think he will because he was "brought up too soon". I bet some GM's think the same thing. How many guy are given chance after chance in the majors because they have talent and some team thinks they can figure it out? Or how one good season out of a career of failure leads to a GM making a bad decision? I would think Gomez could bring back a back end of the rotation, youngish starter. If Washington doesn't sign Bourn this offseason they'll be looking for a CF, maybe Texas if Hamilton leaves.

[tstads20]

Is the expectation that some team will think Gomez will perform even better next year that what he's done this year?

 

A lot of posters here think he will because he was "brought up too soon". I bet some GM's think the same thing. How many guy are given chance after chance in the majors because they have talent and some team thinks they can figure it out? Or how one good season out of a career of failure leads to a GM making a bad decision? I would think Gomez could bring back a back end of the rotation, youngish starter. If Washington doesn't sign Bourn this offseason they'll be looking for a CF, maybe Texas if Hamilton leaves.

 

That seems pretty optimistic for Gomez, I think teams will take their chances than on a one-year guy. Then again, seeing what Melky did in San Fran, have to wonder what people would give up.

 

He probably won't cost too much to keep, almost better off seeing if he can show it again.

[Funketown]

If Gomez can be a .250/.300/.450 guy next season, which might be a bit optimistic but isn't far off his projections, he'll be a very valuable player. For the first time in his career, I'm confident in saying that Carlos Gomez will be a solid everyday player.

[rluzinski]

Is the expectation that some team will think Gomez will perform even better next year that what he's done this year?

 

"Selling high" is probably more of a belief that the player is going to crash. If you think Gomez is going to fall back to his old numbers, and you can trade him for the value of someone who is going to continue to play at his current level, then you trade him..

 

My point was, if Gomez continues hitting next year like he did this year, it's not much higher than what his projection suggests he should. He's shown a nice tick in power but it's not like he's having some crazy breakout season.

 

The whole selling high/low thing is just kind of overblown, IMO because most GMs don't think that way. If a career .750 hitter has a surprising .900 OPS season, GM's aren't expecting a .750 or .900 season the following year.

[monty57]

Is the expectation that some team will think Gomez will perform even better next year that what he's done this year?

 

"Selling high" is probably more of a belief that the player is going to crash. If you think Gomez is going to fall back to his old numbers, and you can trade him for the value of someone who is going to continue to play at his current level, then you trade him..

 

My point was, if Gomez continues hitting next year like he did this year, it's not much higher than what his projection suggests he should. He's shown a nice tick in power but it's not like he's having some crazy breakout season.

 

The whole selling high/low thing is just kind of overblown, IMO because most GMs don't think that way. If a career .750 hitter has a surprising .900 OPS season, GM's aren't expecting a .750 or .900 season the following year.

 

In any trade, you're essentially paring your projection off against someone else's projection. If (using your example) you think the player is really a .750 OPS player who "got lucky," all it takes is to find one GM who thinks the .900 OPS is for real... that the player has finally "figured it out."

 

GM's are human beings, and they act independantly of one another. They may all have the same "tools," but they don't use exactly the same projection methodology. One may trust a scout who says the player did something with his swing that means he'll be a .900 OPS player going forward, while another would put more credence in something like ZIPS, and yet another just says "he's always been x, so he will always remain x." GM's have all kinds of reasons they'd do things differently from other GM's.

 

The terminology "Selling high/low" probably is overused, as most trades aren't "sell/buy high/low." I may be stating the obvious, but it's all about how the GM views his player and how he is going to act on that viewpoint. If the "action" is to trade the player, the next move is trying to find another GM who values what you're trying to sell and is willing to give up what you want.

 

To topic, you are probably right that Gomez isn't really a "sell high" situation because his numbers aren't that out of line. Bill Hall or Casey McGehee would've been better examples of "sell high," as they came out of nowhere and put up big years. Using that past history, I would think Melvin would be more apt to try to extend Gomez than to trade him.

[HiAndTight]

Realized watching this week that I no longer have to switch games when Gomez came to the plate....indeed i was actually enjoying watching him hit...righthanders even! When did this happen?

 

I suppose this means we're gonna have to pay him now...

 

They're basically just letting him "be Carlos Gomez" at the plate and not trying to have him hit high in the order like earlier in the season. Seems to be working.

 

As far as paying him, I'm still not sure. The team does have other options for center field.

 

 

I love Gomez, and I saw a change in him earlier this season for a good stretch before he got hurt....unfortunately that change was him hit for some power, but taking more pitches, swinging at fewer pitches, and becoming a player I thought could hit .280 or so with his wheels and a .325 type OBP. And he was until his hammy put him on the DL and he couldn't run full speed for a full season month. He lost several IF singles when he was hobbled.

 

I wasn't sure if it was going to stick, and as one of his biggest fans early in the season, I don't really think it has. They have taken the reigns off him so to speak, but now he selling out on every pitch. He's a very valuable player. I'd personally say if he could put up numbers like he has this year(as an everyday starter) I'd pay him maybe 4/24.

 

But do you think Boras will go for that? Elite CF'er with 20+ HR power and a .770 type OPS? I think someone will pay Gomez 8 million or so per year and I just don't think that's worth it. Unless Gomez decides he wants to stay here and the "Boras effect," doesn't skew the numbers too greatly, I think he is a guy you should shop around a little bit this off-season.

 

 

I do have to say, if there is a guy to reward for playing the game hard, playing it right(not always playing it the smartest way, though he's really done a lot to eliminate those mental errors this season) and just pure love of the game, he deserves it. But with Logan Schafer I question the Brewers being motivated enough to really sign him for a multi year deal.

[rluzinski]

In any trade, you're essentially paring your projection off against someone else's projection. If (using your example) you think the player is really a .750 OPS player who "got lucky," all it takes is to find one GM who thinks the .900 OPS is for real... that the player has finally "figured it out."

 

I agree that every team is going to have a different projection for each player. The question is, how divergent are those projections? Is one team really going to have a .750 OPS for a player that another team has .900 OPS for? I maintain that for 99.9% of the players out there (even the ones who had a "breakout" season the year before), most teams are going to be pretty close to each other. Why? Because in part, GM's know not to just look at one year of results. I think some fans think that 500 AB is an eternity and think that GM's do as well. Whether or not GM's know the term, they believe understand the concept of regression.

[monty57]

In any trade, you're essentially paring your projection off against someone else's projection. If (using your example) you think the player is really a .750 OPS player who "got lucky," all it takes is to find one GM who thinks the .900 OPS is for real... that the player has finally "figured it out."

 

I agree that every team is going to have a different projection for each player. The question is, how divergent are those projections? Is one team really going to have a .750 OPS for a player that another team has .900 OPS for? I maintain that for 99.9% of the players out there (even the ones who had a "breakout" season the year before), most teams are going to be pretty close to each other. Why? Because in part, GM's know not to just look at one year of results. I think some fans think that 500 AB is an eternity and think that GM's do as well. Whether or not GM's know the term, they believe understand the concept of regression.

 

Agreed. It's the outliers that everyone hopes for, like trading Bill Hall after he hits 35 HR or giving up peanuts for JJ Hardy just before he re-gains his All Star form.

 

I'm with you that while Gomez probably raised his trade value this season, we wouldn't get too much back for him. There's too much chance he really is a part-time player. If Melvin were able to snag a good return in trade, I don't know if I'd call it "selling high" or simply taking advantage of a GM who's been in the bar a bit too long.