Team overviews
Since the usual would make no sense, I'll list the top three players as well as the team that leads the league in that category. Players with an asterisk did not make the ASG roster.
| NL Team | NL 1st | NL 2nd | NL 3rd | AL Team | AL 1st | AL 2nd | AL 3rd | |
| wRC+ | 110 (Cardinals) | 162 (Buster Posey) | 157 (Paul Goldschmidt) | 157 (Joey Votto) | 114 (Tigers) | 204 (Miguel Cabrera) | 193 (Chris Davis) | 166 (Mike Trout) |
| BSR | 13.5 (Mets) | 5.8 (Everth Cabrera) | 5.4 (Starling Marte*) | 4.9 (Carlos Gonzalez) | 9.3 (Red Sox) | 8.7 (Jacoby Ellsbury*) | 6.4 (Rajai Davis*) | 5.7 (Mike Trout) |
| 2.5-year UZR | 87.6 (Diamondbacks) | 42.4 (Jason Heyward*) | 30 (Darwin Barney*) | 27 (Brandon Phillips) | 98.6 (Rays) | 33 (Dustin Pedroia) | 30.1 (Alex Gordon*) | 24.2 (Brendan Ryan*) |
| 2.5-year DRS | 139 (Diamondbacks) | 43 (Jason Heyward*) | 33 (Darwin Barney*) | 31 (Clint Barmes*) | 113 (Rays) | 51 (Brendan Ryan*) | 48 (Alex Gordon*) | 40 (Dustin Pedroia) |
| SP FIP- | 87 (Cardinals) | 59 (Matt Harvey) | 60 (Adam Wainwright) | 69 (Clayton Kershaw) | 76 (Tigers) | 65 (Max Scherzer) | 66 (Felix Hernandez) | 67 (Derek Holland*) |
|
RP FIP- (min 30 IP) |
82 (Rockies) | 35 (Jason Grilli) | 43 (Mark Melancon) | 51 (Trevor Rosenthal*) | 84 (Yankees) | 33 (Greg Holland) | 37 (Jesse Crain) | 45 (Glen Perkins*) |
| Batting WAR | 16.2 (Braves) | 4.9 (David Wright) | 4.6 (Carlos Gomez) | 4.5 (Carlos Gonzalez) | 19.8 (Red Sox) | 6.0 (Miguel Cabrera) | 5.7 (Mike Trout) | 5.1 (Chris Davis) |
| Pitching WAR | 12.5 (Rockies?!) | 4.6 (Adam Wainwright) | 4.2 (Matt Harvey) | 3.9 (Clayton Kershaw) | 17.1 (Tigers) | 4.1 (Felix Hernandez) | 4.0 (Max Scherzer) | 3.8 (Derek Holland) |
Of note: lots of bad bullpens in the NL. The AL only has two teams (Cleveland and Houston) with below average FIP- numbers. Were it not for the Astros, the Cubs pen would currently be the worst in MLB.
Injuries of note
Players missing the game due to injury: P Clay Bucholz, P Jesse Crain, P Yu Darvish, 1B Freddie Freeman, P Jeff Locke, P Jordan Zimmermann.
Is Matt Garza still a Cub?
Yes (as of 8:32 PM CEST). There's been lots of interest in him, and hes been informed that he'll probably be traded before Saturday. This would mean that he's made his last start with the Cubs. Rumors have swirled that the Rangers are the frontrunner, and if that's the case it's almost certain that the deal would be centered around Mike Olt, which would be nice. Olt has been pretty shitty at the plate this year, but it sounds like he's been having vision problems which is certainly more fixable than swinging-at-everything problems. MLB.com's T.R. Sullivan says that the Rangers will not consider trading Martin Perez, their top pitching prospect. No mention of Olt in that short piece either.
Comments
Re: the FLB discussion in the last thread, I’d cut Archer too
BerseliusQuote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
I doubt there has ever been a (serious, non-collusion) trade worse than Calvin Johnson for Donald Brown.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
JonKneeV wrote:
False.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
I guess I’ve just figured if the Cubs could sign Garza for an amount that wouldn’t poison his trade value, they’d just, I don’t know, keep him?
GBTSQuote Reply
I read this and first thought “Hmmm, what a strange coincidence that they have inverse records”
In a related note, my brain has been MIA for a month or so.
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
@ mikeakaleroy:
I did too (dying laughing)
WaLiQuote Reply
What kind of vision issues is Olt having and how could they be fixed? I would think it could be pretty serious. From the tiny amount I read (one article when he went on the DL) it said it is possibly related to a concussion he received.
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
yeah, I don’t think they can be written off. he’s had floating bubbles or somesuch in his vision, and the doctors couldn’t figure anything out. he’s been taking eyedrops before/during games, and that’s about it.
GWQuote Reply
@ GW:
Ah, I just assumed he needed Lasik or something. I guess that’s not something that suddenly happens at 25.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
Alvin traded Felix Hernandez, Sea to rick
rick traded Matt Cain, Sf to Alvin
Alvin flipped Matt Cain, SF to MIA
MIA accepted flilp Nolasco, Fla to Alvin
RynoQuote Reply
WaLi wrote:
RynoQuote Reply
Olt’s eyes are all better.
RynoQuote Reply
Lonestar Ball doesn’t seem to think Garza is worth Olt, and didn’t even mention vision or hitting issues.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
I agree. Olt is Beltre’s replacement whenever needed.
TEX should have a rotation of Darvish, Holland, Lewis, Ogando, Perez in a few weeks and Harrison is due back in September. My hope is that TEX does not give up Olt for what would could be the team’s fifth starter by the season’s end.
In other words, I think (at least hope) TEX’s rumored interest in Garza is overblown.
RynoQuote Reply
Olt: 6’2″ 210
1302 PA: .269/.375/.500; 14% BB’s, 26% K’s, .231 ISO
Brett Jackson: 6’2″ 220
2050 PA: .275/.370/.473; 12% BB’s, 27% K’s, .198 ISO
slight edge to Olt, but it’s a little eerie
GWQuote Reply
GW wrote:
Don’t forget about the plus defense.
RynoQuote Reply
GBTS wrote:
Another team would still only be trading for the 2nd half of this season of Matt Garza and then they’d also know what it would take to retain him beyond that. So it wouldn’t be trading for 4 years of Garza, it would still be for this year + the knowledge you also have him for x more years at y dollars.
Meanwhile, from the Cubs’ side, he’ll never be worth more in trade than he is now because after he signs an extension, his trade value is essentially 0 since someone would presumably have given him market value. So it doesn’t add any more prospects to a deal, but it might help another team be more willing to part with the prospects they’re wavering on because they know they won’t lose him to a deal that is unpalatable.
It’s pretty far-fetched. I think most teams would want to trade for him and then work out their own deal with him. It’s riskier, but these guys all think they can work out the best deal for their team, rather than let somebody else do it for them.
Aisle424Quote Reply
GW wrote:
So Olt is even more Brett Jacksonier than Brett Jackson?
Aisle424Quote Reply
I can’t believe I’m about to write this. Get your camera’s ready…
Alvin is right.
Aaaaand right back to being wrong. If TEX traded just Profar for Garza I’d quit the Rangers.
I’m going to be like baking soda and remove Odor.
RynoQuote Reply
@ Ryno:
true, but it’s not like Bert is a hack with the glove. also, they are the same age, and Jackson has been promoted more aggressively.
GWQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
Except he’s all right.
RynoQuote Reply
@ GW:
Yeah, that’s what I mean. Same power, patience and defense. Bert plays a more premium defensive position, but I have more faith in Olt’s bat.
RynoQuote Reply
@ Ryno:
ah, I misunderstood
GWQuote Reply
I like that Ryno goes to BCB and brings the highlights here so I don’t have to go there myself.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Ryno wrote:
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GW:
Well then get your shit together and start understanding.
RynoQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
I feel violated.
RynoQuote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
Right. I can’t remember ever seeing a sign-and-trade in baseball.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
I can’t either. There’s really no reason for them in baseball.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ GBTS:
The only thing I can figure is that the prospects of losing a guy like Garza with no compensation under the new CBA would make a known quantity of an extension have some value. But like I said, it seems far-fetched.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Ryno:
I think technically I should have used ‘[]blown.’
GBTSQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
I feel like you want to just join me in saying “it’s a fucking retarded suggestion and there is literally no reason to do it” but something is holding you back. (dying laughing)
GBTSQuote Reply
GBTS wrote:
RynoQuote Reply
GBTS wrote:
RynoQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
(dying laughing) I probably would but I wonder if the new CBA hasn’t changed some thinking a bit. It’s completely preposterous in other years and may still be, but eliminating that variable and risk might have a small amount of value in a trade now.
So I’d say it’s ~80% bullshit, whereas in past years I would have said 99.999% bullshit.
Aisle424Quote Reply
I mean, we never used to see teams locking up their young players so early in the stages of their careers before either. So the thinking has changed, but to go so far as to say that sign-and-trades are now plausible is still a big jump to make, but I can’t 100% rule it out anymore either.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
I seem to recall deals in the past that were contingent on the exercise (or waiver) of an option by the team or player, so would it be that much of a stretch to see a deal that was contingent on at least an agreement in principle for an extension? It’s a little different than a true sign-and-trade, but similar in concept.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
Yeah, teams have been given a 48-hour window to work out an extension after agreeing in principle to trade for a player. That’s not uncommon.
If the Cubs sign Garza to an extension, it’s to keep him in Chicago. Why on earth would the Rangers want the Cubs to work out a deal when they think they could probably do it better? Why would Garza sign an extension with the Cubs if he’s going to be traded? It would be in his interest to test the free agent market.
Plus, any extension more than likely makes him less valuable in a trade.
dmick89Quote Reply
Olt’s eyes have been better for a while now and he’s managed to raise his K rate. Watch out for SNT and GIGOTOS Syndrome, they’re both a bitch.
Olt is even worse than B-Jax. And like B-Jax it just took a minute for it to get exposed. Olt is older, plays a less valuable position, and somehow manages to strike out more often.
DoogolasQuote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
I can’t rule it out 100%, but I feel confident in ruling it out 99% or better. The Rangers will want to sign a player to an extension and not have another team do it. Garza might give the Cubs a hometown discount, but he won’t give them that discount if they’re going to trade him. There would be no benefit whatsoever for the Rangers here. There would be none for Garza. I also don’t think there would be any benefit for the Cubs.
The thinking has changed in terms of who you sign, but it’s changed in a way that makes sense. Young players have incentive to sign large contracts instead of making a few million per season. They could get injured and end up with none and this way, they have a lot of money to fall back on it. It makes perfect sense for the teams because they get good cheap talent for a long time.
I don’t think there’s any way that Garza would do this. This way he’s negotiating with one team and giving up the ability to have all teams negotiate with him at the end of the year. He’ll get less money this way.
dmick89Quote Reply
Suburban kidQuote Reply
I don’t think Olt is all that good at this point and probably only has a backup future ahead of him, but that’s about what I expect to get in return for Garza anyway.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Doogolas:
olt is all of 25 days older. and jackson has struck out slightly more in his minor league career, but they are pretty much a wash in that department.
GWQuote Reply
New Shit
MylesQuote Reply