Hot Stove

On the Heyward deal don't think it matters if Cards can resign him or not. My thinking on stuff like that is they could sign the player as a FA whether they traded for him now or not. So I only factor in the short term control in evaluating a trade.

Nobody on either side of the discussion factored in whether the Cards could re-sign Heyward or not, so I have no idea why he brought that up.

As to the Stanton deal, it's a great deal for the Marlins. At 25 mil a year, they will be (relatively) underpaying him within 3 or 4 years. And at 25, he is a much safer signing bet than Cano, not to mention a more attractive, charismatic draw to young Miami fans.

With Loria at the helm, it would be imprudent to put much faith in any "new direction" or long-term commitment. However, it does show the willingness to spend for their best, marquee player. And it tells their excellent young starting staff of Fernandez-Cosart-Alvarez-Koehler (with Heaney and the fireballing Kolek on the way); their other premium outfielders Yelich and Ozuna; and their Gold Glove caliber shortstop, Hechevarria; that Stanton will always be here to center a possible winning team.

If those talented youngsters gel into a playoff team--which is likely--then the fans could come back, and Loria might change his mercurial ways. Either way, I would definitely rather be a Marlins fan than a Mets or Phillies (and maybe even a Braves) fan right now...

The last time the Marlins "spent money" it was in a series of backloaded contracts that they intended to ditch through trades after a couple of years. The wheels came off sooner than they thought and they dumped them even sooner than originally planned.

This looks to me like more of the same. Stanton will get less money than he would have got in arbitration in the next couple of years. The backend is where the real money is for Stanton and suspect he won't be with the Marlins then(unless the revenues and salaries explode over the next seven seasons and those big $$$ become a bargain then).

The last time the Marlins "spent money" it was in a series of backloaded contracts that they intended to ditch through trades after a couple of years. The wheels came off sooner than they thought and they dumped them even sooner than originally planned.

This looks to me like more of the same. Stanton will get less money than he would have got in arbitration in the next couple of years. The backend is where the real money is for Stanton and suspect he won't be with the Marlins then(unless the revenues and salaries explode over the next seven seasons and those big $$$ become a bargain then).

This isn't more of the same. The last time the Marlins spent money, they spent it on dubious talents or dubious healthy bodies to impress a city that had just handed them the new stadium. Giancarlo Stanton is not Jose Reyes, Mark Buehrle, and Heath Bell...not even close.

Also, the first 6 years of his contract--from which he cannot opt out--will only pay him 107 m, which is a bargain at 17.83 mil a year. That, combined with Stanton's no-trade clause, means the deal is an immediate win for the Marlins and Marlins fans. And with so much money being back-ended, Stanton will become less likely to opt out with each coming season.

Finally, that salary-dump trade hardly corresponded with "wheels coming off." They got rid of loads of bad contracts for mediocre, old, and/or fragile players in return for Alvarez, Hechevarria, Nicolino, Desclafani, and (through trades) Cosart and Dietrich. That worked out quite well for the Marlins and helped convince Stanton they have the talent meriting his stay.

Thanks mr baseball world. That helped frame this contract really well.

Though backloading a contract with all the money guaranteed like it is in baseball could end badly if he develops injury problems or fails to perform up to expectations over the life of the contract. Might become difficult to move that contract 6 years from now. Yankees might be able to carry an Arod style contract with low return but when the backloading kicks in if Stanton is not still an upper tier player could be a significant stumbling block.

Might be they plan on dumping him as the big money on this contract approaches. Anyone know if the contract included a no trade clause? Or other details... opt out clause, automatic team or player renewal options, etc?

Thanks mr baseball world. That helped frame this contract really well.

Though backloading a contract with all the money guaranteed like it is in baseball could end badly if he develops injury problems or fails to perform up to expectations over the life of the contract. Might become difficult to move that contract 6 years from now. Yankees might be able to carry an Arod style contract with low return but when the backloading kicks in if Stanton is not still an upper tier player could be a significant stumbling block.

Might be they plan on dumping him as the big money on this contract approaches. Anyone know if the contract included a no trade clause? Or other details... opt out clause, automatic team or player renewal options, etc?

It's impossible to say whether a long-term contract can be "framed well" without knowing if the player had a no-trade clause or not, which Stanton does. And it goes without saying that a long-term contract will be difficult to be moved during the loaded back-end years, whether a player is injured or not. As I said earlier, Stanton is going to be less likely to waive that option as the money gets better with each year. That is why teams that make such deals do so with the awareness moving the contract will not be a simple option. I'm surprised Valen didn't know that.

The Yankees and a few other teams may be willing to take on the contract if Stanton is still busting out. But nobody, not even the Yankees, is going to touch that contract if Stanton gets seriously hurt or his performance takes a nose-dive.

The real question, now, is whether the Angels are going to try for a similar contract with Trout, how many years and dollars would it take, and would he be willing to forgo free agency and sign it?

"Yes, the Cards give up 4 years of Shelby Miller, who won 15 gms a year ago, and a solid hard-throwing pitching prospect for 1 year of Heyward (& his average hit tool) and Walden. Thats quite a swindle for the Cards...".

I'm pretty surprised that anybody on a baseball simulation site in 2014 would actually employ pitcher wins and batting average in an argument over who won a trade, let alone do so in selective fashion to advance their "argument".

So let's break this down. Heyward's career batting average is a middling .262, yes, but he does absolutely everything else very well. With 4.5 full seasons under his belt all before entering his prime he's put up a .352 career on base percentage, a .429 slugging percentage, and is essentially a centerfielder playing right; i.e, the best defensive corner outfielder in MLB going back several years per all the advanced metrics. So yeah, the Cardinals are only acquiring him for one year of contractual control, but they also acquire a year's worth of time as an exclusive negotiating window to extend him while plugging him in the lineup of a likely playoff team for 2015. And they get two years of control of the flamethrowing Walden to boot, who, unlike the prospect going to Atlanta in the deal, has actually proven himself at the major league level while missing a lot of bats.

On the Braves side they get Shelby Miller who yes won 15 regular season games two seasons ago. And I'll concede further that he had a fine season that year even though pitcher wins is a weak-ass predictive stat when thinking about the future. But his arm was so scragged by the end of that season in 2013 that the Cardinals completely shut him down for the entire postseason, letting him only throw one inning where he got tagged. His velocity plummeted, his mechanics showed it, he had more than fatigue something was dearly wrong. And that showed itself last season where his k/rate (a stat that matters going forward when making predictions unlike pitcher wins) plummeted by 2.5 k's per 9 innings, a massive drop considering that he should be entering his prime. His walk rate spiked by about .6 per 9 too. His velocity was off. The only thing that remotely saved his season was an insanely lucky .256 ba against on balls in play, which is utterly unsustainable. See Voros McKracken's research, etc. Even so he was just 10-9 with an ERA lucky enough to be a middling high 3's. The 15-game winner is gone.

The only plausible thing to say on the Braves side is that they get 4 years of cost control on Miller and a similar amount on the young kid who has yet to make it out of the low minors. But Miller is , at best, a #3 going forward. At best, probably worse than that. Last year , based on the things that a pitcher actually controls that affect the outcome of the game, he was essentially a replacement level starter.

From the Braves perspective they can say that Heyward rebuffed their attempts to sign him to an extension, but they suffer the opportunity loss by settling for the scragged Miller instead of sending Heyward to a contender mid season closer to the trade deadline. Where their leverage will improve. And by jettisoning Heyward they pretty much signal that they've already given up on contending in 2015 even though their core was certainly still good enough (J.Upton, Simmons, Freeman, Kimbrell, etc etc) to snatch a wild card spot. We saw what the Giants and Royals did with that.

So yeah, respectfully, the Cardinals completely swindled the Braves here.

I'm pretty surprised that anybody on a baseball simulation site in 2014 would actually employ pitcher wins and batting average in an argument over who won a trade, let alone do so in selective fashion to advance their "argument".

I'm pretty surprised anybody on a baseball simulation site in 2014 would completely dismiss pitcher wins and batting average in an argument--are we arguing?--over who won a trade. MLB statisticians and executives certainly don't dismiss them; so you're mistaken to do so. Wins are a partial indicator of an SP's ability to stick out a victory. Batting average is a partial indicator of hitting ability. Also, as you can see above and in my subsequent post, I definitely didn't only depend on those issues in my argument; I well-supported it with many other facts. Also, I never mentioned "batting average" in that post you quoted at all. I said "average hit tool," which refers to his entire hitting ability, not just his batting average. You need to read my posts better before you erroneously respond.

So let's break this down. Heyward's career batting average is a middling .262, yes, but he does absolutely everything else very well. With 4.5 full seasons under his belt all before entering his prime he's put up a .352 career on base percentage, a .429 slugging percentage, and is essentially a centerfielder playing right; i.e, the best defensive corner outfielder in MLB going back several years per all the advanced metrics.

No, he doesn't do "everything else" well at all. He is a terrible hitter against left-handers, and hit an atrocious .169 against them last year. That practically makes him a platoon-quality player. Also, a .429 slugging percentage is very unimpressive for a "power-hitting" outfielder. And he has posted dismal sub-.400 slg pcts twice in his career, including an alarmingly bad .384 last year. His power is also questionable, as he only hit 11 hrs in 573 ABs last year.

So, he is essentially an excellent defensive right fielder who can't hit lefties, with mediocre-average hitting skills, dubious power, and ok on-base skills. Excuse me if I'm not majorly impressed...

So yeah, the Cardinals are only acquiring him for one year of contractual control, but they also acquire a year's worth of time as an exclusive negotiating window to extend him while plugging him in the lineup of a likely playoff team for 2015. And they get two years of control of the flamethrowing Walden to boot, who, unlike the prospect going to Atlanta in the deal, has actually proven himself at the major league level while missing a lot of bats.

You majorly overvalue this "negotiating window," particularly since Heyward will not want to actively negotiate until he's improved on his horrid 2014 year. In fact, as the team controlling him, they will still have to match or top what he hopes or expects to get on the open market to keep him from it. So, they would have just as easily and effectively signed him as a free agent. And they could have done so without giving up four years of Shelby Miller. I'm also surprised that someone on a 2014 baseball site would be so dismissive of 95-mph throwing prospects who are tearing up the AFL. I would have thought you could have recognized that value.

On the Braves side they get Shelby Miller who yes won 15 regular season games two seasons ago. And I'll concede further that he had a fine season that year even though pitcher wins is a weak-ass predictive stat when thinking about the future. But his arm was so scragged by the end of that season in 2012 that the Cardinals completely shut him down for the entire postseason, letting him only throw one inning where he got tagged. His velocity plummeted, his mechanics showed it, he had more than fatigue something was dearly wrong. And that showed itself last season where his k/rate (a stat that matters going forward when making predictions unlike pitcher wins) plummeted by 2.5 k's per 9 innings, a massive drop considering that he should be entering his prime. His walk rate spiked by about .6 per 9 too. His velocity was off. The only thing that remotely saved his season was an insanely lucky .256 ba against on balls in play, which is utterly unsustainable. See Voros McKracken's research, etc. Even so he was just 10-9 with an ERA lucky enough to be a middling high 3's. The 15-game winner is gone.

The only plausible thing to say on the Braves side is that they get 4 years of cost control on Miller and a similar amount on the young kid who has yet to make it out of the low minors. But Miller is , at best, a #3 going forward. At best, probably worse than that. Last year , based on the things that a pitcher actually controls that affect the outcome of the game, he was essentially a replacement level starter.

First of all, I'm very surprised a grown-up educated man would ever use the puerile, nebulous "adjective," "weak-ass" to describe anything. It only shows you can't actually articulate what you have against using "wins" as part of one's evaluation of a pitcher. The fact you never specify what is wrong with doing so further undermines your position.

Secondly, many of the things you say about Miller are just wrong. The Cards did shut him down at the end of his rookie season as many teams do with rookie pitchers. He had pitched more innings than he had ever pitched, and the fresh Wacha had already replaced him in the rotation. And nothing was dearly wrong with his mechanics or velocity; they were all fine this year. Yes, he had a k's dip--and a small BB spike--in his sophomore season...many Sps do. However, he was hitting 93-95 most of the year, he had a 2.94 ERA in the second half, as well as a remarkable 1.49 ERA in September, so he's clearly not slowing down.

That makes your saying "the 15-game winner is gone" simply ridiculous. It also makes it hypocritical, since you previously claimed to erroneously give no credence to games won as an evaluator. And starters who throw as hard as Miller and maintain 2.94 ERA's in second halfs are not #4 starters; they are #2-#3 starters. And 4 years of one of them is worth much more than one year of a dubious offensive player like Heyward. And whether or not Jenkins makes it is irrelevant. If he does, it just makes the trade a bigger steal for the Braves.

From the Braves perspective they can say that Heyward rebuffed their attempts to sign him to an extension, but they suffer the opportunity loss by settling for the scragged Miller instead of sending Heyward to a contender mid season closer to the trade deadline. Where their leverage will improve. And by jettisoning Heyward they pretty much signal that they've already given up on contending in 2015 even though their core was certainly still good enough (J.Upton, Simmons, Freeman, Kimbrell, etc etc) to snatch a wild card spot. We saw what the Giants and Royals did with that.

So yeah, respectfully, the Cardinals completely swindled the Braves here.

The Braves made no attempt to sign Heyward to a long-term contract. They were smart enough to know he wasn't worth the risk or investment. And trading Heyward certainly didn't end their playoff hopes. Making room for a more potent hitter like Gattis and greatly improving your starting pitching doesn't tend to do that.

And they settled for no "loss<" although I have no idea why you call Miller "scragged," he's not scrawny. You really are severe in your unfounded criticisms of the kid. They got four years of a 25-yr-old pitcher, who throws 93-95, had a 2.94 ERA in last years second half (with a 1.49 ERA in Sep.), and won 15 games a year ago; and a top fireballing SP prospect for only one year of a mediocre hitting RF who can't hit lefties and a replaceable setup man.

So, yeah, respectfully, the Braves completely swindled the Cards here.

I agree Heyward is better than some give him credit for. I think a lot of that is he has not been what everyone predicted. Too often media people act like a player is a failure if the writer makes an incorrect prediction. So writer's incompetence means you the players are failures. Clearly Heyward has not been a failure. Still view this as a 1 year rental. Players who are traded because they have expressed a desire to test the market almost always stick to the plan. So I do not view it as a 1 year window of exclusive negotiating rights.

Good analysis on Miller. Convincing enough to probably agree Cards come out ahead.

I agree Heyward is better than some give him credit for. I think a lot of that is he has not been what everyone predicted. Too often media people act like a player is a failure if the writer makes an incorrect prediction. So writer's incompetence means you the players are failures. Clearly Heyward has not been a failure. Still view this as a 1 year rental. Players who are traded because they have expressed a desire to test the market almost always stick to the plan. So I do not view it as a 1 year window of exclusive negotiating rights.

Good analysis on Miller. Convincing enough to probably agree Cards come out ahead.

That's the second post of Valen's in a row where he commended another's post without doing any substantial analysis of his own. I hope he isn't losing faith in his own skills in baseball analysis.

As to his specious speculation on why Heyward isn't highly esteemed; it's just that: specious speculation. As I've shown above (and many others have shown), Heyward has done more than enough to merit his negative criticisms, and has failed at too much to be considered a very good (or even solid) all-around player. Although neither I nor most writers have ever called Heyward a 'failure." So, blaming legitimate analyses of Heyward, by those within or outside the baseball world, on failed predictions is just ridiculous.

As to Valen's "descriptive" summary statement "good analysis on Miller," I'll answer it as I did in my last post:

Nothing was "dearly wrong" with Miller's mechanics or velocity in 2013. The Cards shut him down at the end of his rookie season as many teams do with rookie pitchers. He had pitched more innings than he had ever pitched, and the fresh Wacha had already replaced him in the rotation. And his mechanics and velocity were fine this year. Yes, he had a k's dip--and a small BB spike--in his sophomore season...many Sps do. However, he was hitting 93-95 most of the year, he had a 2.94 ERA in the second half, as well as a remarkable 1.49 ERA in September, so he's clearly not slowing down......For some reason, 2.94 second half ERAS and 1.49 September ERA's make Valen think Miller is slowing down.

Finally starters who throw as hard as Miller and maintain 2.94 ERA's in second halfs are not #4 starters; they are #2-#3 starters. And 4 years of one of them is worth much more than one year of a dubious offensive player like Heyward. And I'm truly surprised Valen so undervalues 4 years of a young #2-#3 starter.

Giggling at how easy it is to bait some into anxiety-filled rants. In Heyward's worst year he was worth 2 wins over replacement, whereas in Miller's best year he was worth 2 wins over replacement. Heyward has otherwise been a 4-6 win player which is all-star, if not (yet) MVP caliber. He's turning 25 this year. Meanwhile, Miller's important peripheral k/bb stats imploded faster than Strether's patience over the keyboard. The Cardinals didn't "shut him down at the end of the (2013) season (and leave him out of their postseason run ) as many teams do with young pitchers"; they shut him down because his ERA ballooned in August and he was experiencing significant shoulder problems...http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2014/1/2/52 ... s-shoulder

Cardinal swindle indeed.

In other news the Chisox signed Laroche to 2/25 today. That seems like an awful lot of money to throw at a slow 35 year old first baseman with decent power but shoddy on base skills. And plus they already have Abreu. I don't like the signing for the Pale Hose.