Kin
Active member
#1PilarFan said:
No, I'm referring to two different calculations of it and noting when I do. The reason I put f or b before WAR it is to differentiate between the two. Neither are perfect, both have their strengths. You were referring to BR's method so I thought we'd stick to it here.
#1PilarFan said:
But, again, I'm not referring to their high value seasons. I'm referring to their low value seasons. That barrier is being used to illustrate that neither guy has a consistent history of pitching at that level. If Bautista's two big seasons came in the 4th and 5th seasons of his 7 year career as opposed to the most recent two, pointing out that he hasn't consistently delivered at a 45+ homerun pace would be pretty valid if people were counting on him to do so for the next year.
#1PilarFan said:
Well, not really. Fangraphs has his previous two seasons at 2.5 and 2.8 WAR. Very good strikes me as bit of a stretch there. Even bWAR has him at 3.4 and 3.1 which is, you know, good #3 starter stuff.
#1PilarFan said:
I'm sure you'll accuse me of splitting hairs here but Dickey was not dealt for salary reasons. As you yourself point out later, the Blue Jays actually sent the Mets more salary than Dickey was due to receive this year. Trading a player because you don't want/aren't able to sign him to an extension is not the same thing as a salary dump. A salary dump, due to it's very nature, implies you are giving up less value than the players themselves are worth because you're taking on their contracts.
That's not what happened here and it's pretty plainly evident in the fact that Dickey did not come at a discount talent wise.
#1PilarFan said:
WAR's not a predictive stat, for one, but two, I said that Buehrle was consistent which he is. As a starting pitcher he's averaged a 4.0 bWAR over his 12 seasons and he's only failed to hit that mark by more than one win twice in those entire twelve years.
And just for a quick note on the stat itself if you're kind of going to be using it for illumination rather than support, I'm sure what you mean by "[he's] on the decline" is that his bWAR the last three years are 3.6, 3.5 and 3.1 but the reality of it is that it's not a precise enough measurement that a 3.6 is a definitively better season than a 3.5. It's a number that takes into account a lot of multi-year variables(defense, park factors) so the differences there, where you're dealing with a half a win or so a season, aren't pinpoint examples of value. Especially in a case like Buerhle where he switched clubs.
#1PilarFan said:
No, and I wasn't accusing you of making it. What I was doing was extending your case that the Jays need to go "all in" by taking it to it's most ludicrous extreme to show that, clearly, there is a line at which the Jays are more prudent to hold back some of their chips and that winning next year is not paramount to any other consideration. We disagree on where that line is, not on whether it exists as I said.
#1PilarFan said:
But I think this is where your use of metaphors like all-in or "110%" don't serve you well because those do mean leaving literally nothing left. Holding nothing back. As you say, that's not what you're advocating. So, again, we're talking about how much to invest in next year, not whether or not it's an all or nothing proposition.
And you've repeated it, but you still haven't actually made a case for why you can't improve the roster gradually.
#1PilarFan said:
I didn't say "There are ways to get good pitching for nothing". I said there are other ways to bolster the roster that don't include trading away two of your top three prospects.
#1PilarFan said:
No, it's not. It's pulling two names out of my butt to illustrate that there are ways to improve the club that don't carry the same level of risk. Whether or not those specific moves are available is besides the point I'm making about the specific need to make a move as risky as this trade.
#1PilarFan said:
Well, let's separate that into three points instead to simplify things. One, they gave up too much for Dickey. We agree there so we can move on. Two, they didn't need to add another arm. I'm saying that in the most literal sense possible so that's not super controversial either. Three, that whatever window may appear open in the AL East right now it shouldn't prompt decisions that are bad value and detract unnecessarily from the club's future strength due to an all or nothing approach.
That's it. The opportunity you see for next year? I see it. I saw it last year too(and I think I was proven right) and I don't see why it would vanish by 2014. I don't think Boston can rebuild in a year. Most people who discount the Yankees next year(and I think too many do, as they still might be the favourites) do so on the basis of them being an aging club and, Einstein's theories so far holding true, that problem gets worse next year. Tampa will probably always be Tampa and Baltimore is a bit of a wild card going forward. So when I look at the AL East I see uncertainty in the coming years, not a rapidly shutting window that we have to jam body parts into as quickly as possible.
Look at Tampa's deal with Kansas City. Tampa is probably the smartest front office in baseball. They see the exact same window that you do and they were probably the best positioned team to take advantage of it. Tampa, desperate for a new stadium, needs a big season as much as anyone. But their big off-season move was to deal James Shields. Now, I've argued that I think that their trade might not detract from their chances at all next season but it's still a trade being made with an eye further down the road. Because they know that 2014 and 2015 still exist and that they want to be good for those years too. Tampa knows that even after trading Shields, they're very much going to be in the discussion for the division favourites next season.
I think the same sort of thinking should have won out in the Jays' front office. Lots of people, writers and people just in this thread, were saying that the Jays had the best rotation in the division even before this trade. They were well positioned to take a run at it. I appreciate what you say "as a Jays fan" but I think it's that sort of thinking leads to overreaction. The Dickey trade doesn't strike me as smart or prudent, it's dealing a lot of prospect value for a guy who marginally increases their chances, but rather as an overreaction to the demands of fans who are frustrated and fed up. I think AA, in particular, overreacted to last off-season where he didn't make the big deals for guys like Darvish and Latos and Gonzalez, guys who were probably better bets in this regard and the heat he took for it. This was a bad market to spend in, whether the currency was prospects or cash.
Don't get me wrong, I want the Jays to win too, I just want the model to be Tampa Bay but with money. I think with a really smart front office and with Rogers' money behind the club that this is a team that can be long term successful and I just didn't see the need to kneecap the progress being made towards that because fans are antsy.
