|
Post by templeusox on Dec 28, 2015 17:47:20 GMT -5
In which case they get another year of service out of him. I get what you're saying but as good as he is do you really want a lowlife like that on your team? It's hard to root for a guy like that - even on your own team. I can easily accept rooting for a guy that has warts like Boggs, but a violent guy like Chapman who uses that violence against women - it's just really hard to root for. Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 28, 2015 17:47:52 GMT -5
In which case they get another year of service out of him. I get what you're saying but as good as he is do you really want a lowlife like that on your team? It's hard to root for a guy like that - even on your own team. I can easily accept rooting for a guy that has warts like Boggs, but a violent guy like Chapman who uses that violence against women - it's just really hard to root for. As much as I hate the Kimbrel trade it's preferable to rooting for a team that sees an instance of domestic violence as a buy-low opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 28, 2015 17:51:29 GMT -5
As much as I hate the Kimbrel trade it's preferable to rooting for a team that sees an instance of domestic violence as a buy-low opportunity. Perhaps I'm cynical, but I have little confidence that the Red Sox wouldn't have made the same trade if it was available. The difference isn't in morality, but mentality
|
|
|
Post by prangerx on Dec 28, 2015 17:52:31 GMT -5
Well Sox got out on Chapmen once they heard about the domestic violence incident and got Kimbrel instead. Perhaps they went back in with a lesser offer later on but just me wondering. You would think our second tier guys could have got a deal done. But we may have just not wanted the headache.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 28, 2015 17:56:34 GMT -5
I get what you're saying but as good as he is do you really want a lowlife like that on your team? It's hard to root for a guy like that - even on your own team. I can easily accept rooting for a guy that has warts like Boggs, but a violent guy like Chapman who uses that violence against women - it's just really hard to root for. Absolutely. I would not root for him if the sox traded for him. So I'm happy they didn't trade for him.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 28, 2015 18:18:54 GMT -5
So you essentially think there's only 140-150 high leverage relief innings a season? Yes, and he's right. There are about 100 high-leverage relief appearances per team per season, and there are roughly three times as many low-leverage relief situations as high-leverage relief situations ( link). That's not to suggest that having great relief depth is pointless-- excellent relief performances in medium- and low-leverage situations still matter, and depth is nice in case your top guys get hurt. But there is an element of diminishing returns. During the regular season. Post season is a different animal and I think there's a lot more to be said than given credit for to reducing the high leverage situations.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 28, 2015 18:31:42 GMT -5
So you essentially think there's only 140-150 high leverage relief innings a season? Yes, and he's right. There are about 100 high-leverage relief appearances per team per season, and there are roughly three times as many low-leverage relief situations as high-leverage relief situations ( link). That's not to suggest that having great relief depth is pointless-- excellent relief performances in medium- and low-leverage situations still matter, and depth is nice in case your top guys get hurt. But there is an element of diminishing returns. I think that element of "diminishing returns" is next to nil in this situation.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Dec 28, 2015 18:43:50 GMT -5
As much as I hate the Kimbrel trade it's preferable to rooting for a team that sees an instance of domestic violence as a buy-low opportunity. This is exactly how I feel. Not saying baseball players should be role models, but this was a highly questionable move by the Yankees FO.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 28, 2015 18:45:56 GMT -5
Yes, and he's right. There are about 100 high-leverage relief appearances per team per season, and there are roughly three times as many low-leverage relief situations as high-leverage relief situations ( link). That's not to suggest that having great relief depth is pointless-- excellent relief performances in medium- and low-leverage situations still matter, and depth is nice in case your top guys get hurt. But there is an element of diminishing returns. I think that element of "diminishing returns" is next to nil in this situation. Read what he wrote, Poke. There just aren't that many high-leverage situations in a season. There are what, 400-500 relief appearances per team per year? And that may be low. So less than a quarter are high-leverage, and maybe a lot less. It's useful to have shutdown guys for as many of the others as possible, but it makes little difference. Do you see that?
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 28, 2015 18:58:57 GMT -5
This trade and Chapman's baggage will be remembered.... and forgotten respectively by NYYankee fans. They forgave Arod, they will forgive Chapman. Just as they remember how the ARod trade to the Sox fell through. Wonder if George would have given Cashman the green light for this deal?
|
|
|
Post by Sox Mojo Rising on Dec 28, 2015 19:21:48 GMT -5
The Reds could and should have kept him until the Yankees were willing to give up one of Bird, Sanchez, Judge or Mateo. At worst the Reds would have had to keep an elite closer, who would have netted the organization a draft pick at the end of next year (QO). To not get one top-5 prospect in the Yanks system, in a deal for one of the best relievers in MLB, is mind-boggling. Even with a possible looming suspension, he still gives the Yanks the scariest bullpen in MLB in the 2nd half of 2016. In 2015, Betances-Miller-Chapman combined for 212 IP - 347 K - 14.7 K/9 Incredible steal for Cashman and the Yankees... I just don't really get this line of thinking. So you're going to pitch one of the best relief pitchers in baseball in a 6-1 game in the 7th inning? I just don't know that there's enough high leverage situations to use these pitchers in a valuable way. It just seems like a waste unless they trade Miller. Having three of the best relievers in Baseball is a waste because there aren't enough "high-leverage" innings to go around? Yeah. OK. It's not just about closing out games. There will be instances when the Yanks are down a run or two in the 6th/7th/8th innings and their opponent is threatening to break the game open... Girardi can call upon any one of those three to immediately extinguish the threat and give their offense a chance to come back. As much as I'd like to find a reason to not like this deal from the NY-side of things, I just can't, and if you're being honest with yourself, you can't either. They now have the top-3 swing and miss guys in the league... so let's not pretend the back end of that pen isn't anything short of terrifying.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Dec 28, 2015 19:30:36 GMT -5
If nothing else, it demonstrates the virtue of patience over panic. And exposes all the "identified who he wanted and went out and got him - what a MAN!" for the palaver that it always was. I know you are mister butthurt, but there is absolutely nothing to suggest the Kimbrel trade was a "panic" move.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 28, 2015 19:33:24 GMT -5
I just don't really get this line of thinking. So you're going to pitch one of the best relief pitchers in baseball in a 6-1 game in the 7th inning? I just don't know that there's enough high leverage situations to use these pitchers in a valuable way. It just seems like a waste unless they trade Miller. Having three of the best relievers in Baseball is a waste because there aren't enough "high-leverage" innings to go around? Yeah. OK. It's not just about closing out games. There will be instances when the Yanks are down a run or two in the 6th/7th/8th innings and their opponent is threatening to break the game open... Girardi can call upon any one of those three to immediately extinguish the threat and give their offense a chance to come back. As much as I'd like to find a reason to not like this deal from the NY-side of things, I just can't, and if you're being honest with yourself, you can't either. They now have the top-3 swing and miss guys in the league... so let's not pretend the back end of that pen isn't anything short of terrifying. If a team has all replacement level relievers and you add five Aroldis Chapmans, the first will have a bigger impact on wins than the second. The second will be more important than the third. And the third will be more important than the fourth, etc. that is just common sense. As for the deal, minus the domestic abuse stuff it is a mammoth home run for the Yankees. Even if he's suspended for 50 games, it's a huge win. But the DA stuff is real. Hopefully the PR cries not to support this scumbag are loud and make them regret it.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 28, 2015 19:48:23 GMT -5
I just don't really get this line of thinking. So you're going to pitch one of the best relief pitchers in baseball in a 6-1 game in the 7th inning? I just don't know that there's enough high leverage situations to use these pitchers in a valuable way. It just seems like a waste unless they trade Miller. Having three of the best relievers in Baseball is a waste because there aren't enough "high-leverage" innings to go around? Yeah. OK. It's not just about closing out games. There will be instances when the Yanks are down a run or two in the 6th/7th/8th innings and their opponent is threatening to break the game open... Girardi can call upon any one of those three to immediately extinguish the threat and give their offense a chance to come back. As much as I'd like to find a reason to not like this deal from the NY-side of things, I just can't, and if you're being honest with yourself, you can't either. They now have the top-3 swing and miss guys in the league... so let's not pretend the back end of that pen isn't anything short of terrifying. And in the other half of the 162 game season, the score will not be tied or a 1 run game in the 7th-9th innings.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 28, 2015 19:56:34 GMT -5
...As much as I hate the Kimbrel trade it's preferable to rooting for a team that sees an instance of domestic violence as a buy-low opportunity. No surprises here. It's New York and they fill many of those high-priced seats with the guys and gals highlighted in Michael Lewis' The Big Short. Many of them have made a good living off of violence - financial violence and other flavors also. I don't think you'll hear too many Yankee fans complaining. Gut-check for Manfred. Let's see if he has the nuts for this game. The biggest of the big-market teams just threw the gauntlet down, daring him to take away their shiny new toy.
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Dec 28, 2015 20:00:10 GMT -5
...As much as I hate the Kimbrel trade it's preferable to rooting for a team that sees an instance of domestic violence as a buy-low opportunity. No surprises here. It's New York and they fill many of those high-priced seats with the guys and gals highlighted in Michael Lewis' The Big Short. Many of them have made a good living off of violence - financial violence and other flavors also. I don't think you'll hear too many Yankee fans complaining. Gut-check for Manfred. Let's see if he has the nuts for this game. The biggest of the big-market teams just threw the gauntlet down, daring him to take away their shiny new toy. The MLB Twitter page has posted a lot of tweets regarding Chapman being on the move and such... I think they're already going about this the wrong way. What happened to them wanting to be proactive in not tolerating any domestic violence at all? This is all just a really weird situation.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 28, 2015 20:19:26 GMT -5
Yes, and he's right. There are about 100 high-leverage relief appearances per team per season, and there are roughly three times as many low-leverage relief situations as high-leverage relief situations ( link). That's not to suggest that having great relief depth is pointless-- excellent relief performances in medium- and low-leverage situations still matter, and depth is nice in case your top guys get hurt. But there is an element of diminishing returns. I think that element of "diminishing returns" is next to nil in this situation. If you're going to attribute extra value to pitching in high-leverage situations (which both variants of WAR do, but less statistically-inclined folks (including yourself) do even more), you have to recognize the relative scarcity of high-leverage situations. It's not enough to say that you shouldn't have more than a few good relievers, but the third elite reliever is definitely less of an upgrade than the first. ADD: to be clear, I don't think it's a huge difference-- maybe 5% or 10% or something, and probably not enough to sway your opinion on the trade. But it's definitely a thing.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 28, 2015 20:36:53 GMT -5
...As much as I hate the Kimbrel trade it's preferable to rooting for a team that sees an instance of domestic violence as a buy-low opportunity. No surprises here. It's New York and they fill many of those high-priced seats with the guys and gals highlighted in Michael Lewis' The Big Short. Many of them have made a good living off of violence - financial violence and other flavors also. I don't think you'll hear too many Yankee fans complaining. Gut-check for Manfred. Let's see if he has the nuts for this game. The biggest of the big-market teams just threw the gauntlet down, daring him to take away their shiny new toy. It's great to say Manfred should come down hard, but make no mistake about it that if he does the MLB Players Union will fight it and they will win. This isn't the NFL. The union has a lot more power and will insist that he is punished within the parameters of the CBA at the time of the infraction - as they rightfully should.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 28, 2015 21:05:39 GMT -5
I was wondering if he'd come down at all.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 28, 2015 21:28:30 GMT -5
I think that element of "diminishing returns" is next to nil in this situation. If you're going to attribute extra value to pitching in high-leverage situations (which both variants of WAR do, but less statistically-inclined folks (including yourself) do even more), you have to recognize the relative scarcity of high-leverage situations. It's not enough to say that you shouldn't have more than a few good relievers, but the third elite reliever is definitely less of an upgrade than the first. ADD: to be clear, I don't think it's a huge difference-- maybe 5% or 10% or something, and probably not enough to sway your opinion on the trade. But it's definitely a thing. This is all true, but it's not a criticism of this trade. The Yankees gave up very, very little for Chapman, maybe the equivalent of what they'd give up for a really good 6th/7th inning guy, anyway. So, in a way, the value of the trade - on a pure baseball level - matches the idea of getting the third best guy in a good bullpen. It's just that in this case, you're talking about one of the top 3/4 relievers in the game to fill that role. However, on a non-baseball level, f*** this trade and the Yankees!!! What Chapman did (is accused of, whatever) is reprehensible, and I'd be ashamed if the Red Sox took advantage of that situation as a way to get a better reliever for a lower cost. The Yankees are directly, knowingly benefiting from the pain and suffering of Chapman's victim. There's really no other way of putting it. I have to stop; I really can't go on without violating the profanity rules of this forum or making every other word a first letter and a string of asterisks.
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Dec 28, 2015 21:56:37 GMT -5
The smart baseball move today is the A's signing Henderson Alvarez for 1 year. I would not be surprised if that move is not more impactful than the Chapman trade.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Dec 28, 2015 22:01:33 GMT -5
I really hate to be saying this because I think BP guys are over-rated, but there is a thing called injuries/ineffectiveness that the Yankees are now very well protected against and they gave up absolutely nothing to get him there. Who cares how useful having 3 elite BP arms means when everyone is healthy and pitching effectively? They aren't all going to either live up to expectations or be healthy for 162. They have options now.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Dec 28, 2015 22:02:55 GMT -5
What a steal, either he gets a major suspension and the Yankees get him for 2017, or he gets a minor one and they get him for 2016 + a draft pick. They didn't give all that much more than a draft pick.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Dec 28, 2015 22:04:19 GMT -5
No surprises here. It's New York and they fill many of those high-priced seats with the guys and gals highlighted in Michael Lewis' The Big Short. Many of them have made a good living off of violence - financial violence and other flavors also. I don't think you'll hear too many Yankee fans complaining. Gut-check for Manfred. Let's see if he has the nuts for this game. The biggest of the big-market teams just threw the gauntlet down, daring him to take away their shiny new toy. It's great to say Manfred should come down hard, but make no mistake about it that if he does the MLB Players Union will fight it and they will win. This isn't the NFL. The union has a lot more power and will insist that he is punished within the parameters of the CBA at the time of the infraction - as they rightfully should. Like they did with A-Rod?
|
|
|
Post by philarhody on Dec 28, 2015 22:44:29 GMT -5
By prolonging his free agency through suspension, Chapman's abuse of a woman actually inflates his value to America's favorite baseball team! God bless the USA!!!
Unbelievably tough break for Cincinnati.
|
|