Lazorko Saves

No, I understood, I just disagree with your hypothesis. That's all. Not a big deal. You don't magically have better command, movement, velocity (whatever ingredients you think make up performing better as a pitcher)...just because you know you're making fewer starts over a year. Ask anybody who pitched competitively.

Taking the thread seriously (I know, my mistake)...I cannot think of two things more different in the sporting world than: - 10 (or 35) Pitching starts spaced out across many months with at least 4 days between them. and - 12 rounds of heavyweight boxing occurring in the space of just a few hours. Especially fictional boxing happening only in a movie. Sorry, but it's a completely busted analogy. Career years do happen, but not because of conscious choice of some short-term effort vs long-term endurance thing.

Excellent, we have our guy who will give up a 10th inning meatball for a grand slam to Matt Olson in the first game of the season. And he only costs double what Hoby Milner did!

I think it's long past time we took Peter Gammons off the $20 bill.

Agreed. I've always liked Dan's stuff, but his system has a bit of a blind spot on rookies who don't have high end prospect pedigrees. One thing I think his system does really well, however, is identify pitchers who are about to take a step forward in their development. He mentions his projections liking Sandoval and Canning, so let's hope for that.

I'd be on board for us getting Darvish at a fair price, but I'm not sure I agree with the premise of the article. That premise being, Darvish has enough excess value (expected performance minus contract cost) to get elite prospects. Not sure about that. Would Darvish at age 35-36-37 at about $20m per really worth an Adell or Marsh type prospect? I don't see that. Even if you like Darvish more than Bauer, you can get some of Bauer's younger years (age 30-34) at maybe $25m a year without giving up an A-level prospect (just a 2nd round draft pick).

Was curious how "low leverage" Turnbow's appearances were as I had remembered them, so checked his 2000 game log page at: https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.fcgi?id=turnbde01&t=p&year=2000 24 appearances, 19 of which the Angels were down by 4 or more runs. 3 appearances where the Angels led by 4 or more. 1 appearance in a tie. 1 appearance with a 2 run lead. That is *really* hiding a guy on a roster for a whole year.

Turnbow is interesting because he clearly wasn't MLB ready, and the Angels essentially played with a 24-man roster all year to keep him. He only threw 38 innings all year in only very low leverage situations and I'm sure the Phillies were thinking the Angels have got to offer him back any day now all through 2000. But the Angels did keep him on the roster all year for 2000, and then could send him back to the minors in 2001. Which they did, but then the arm injuries started. He barely played the next two seasons in the minors for the Angels, spending most of the time on the DL. But the time he was fully healthy, the Angels had waived him at the end of 2004 and the Brewers claimed him.

Yeah, certainly the Angels were well aware the TJS situation makes him *more* likely to get picked. But it might make him more likely to also get offered back by the Pirates, as he's likely to have some *very rough* outings against MLB hitters when he finally gets off the DL, being just back from surgery and never playing above A-ball. We'll see. The whole Rule 5 draft is kind of a big poker game, where you might know something about the value of your own players other teams might not know. And where you don't really have much certainty of how other teams would value your prospects on that 40-man borderline.

No, it's a good question. And one that does have an answer. It's because putting a player on the 40-man starts means you start spending his options to send him in the minor leagues. So if you can get Soriano through a Rule 5 draft this year, you can delay his "option clock" starting. Which is kind of important for a pitcher who has only played at A-ball, as you don't want spend one of those three option years on a season where he's got essentially zero chance of contributing at the major league level. Pittsburgh now cannot send him to the minor leagues in 2021 without offering him back to the Angels for $50k.

Yep, get it done Perry. Meet with McCann's agent in the spray paint aisle at the Home Depot in Corona.

What does Andrelton Simmons have to do with this?

My gut says McCann at age 31 = Jonathan Lucroy at age 31. If you acquired Lucroy at 31, you got a former all-star catcher who never produced a > 1.0 WAR season again.

Ohtani is quickly becoming grandma's couch with the original cover on it that no one is allowed to sit on. If it's too much injury risk to have him pitch, and it's too much injury risk to have him play OF, then it's clearly also too much injury risk to have him hit.

Ward is gonna be our emergency closer.

Sorry, I meant this: Ohtani on DL and Schwarber in AAA.

Ohtani at SS and Schwarber at C.

You made Wash frown.

Oh wait, you're technically correct. It appears he was at 1B for one batter in the bottom of the 11th in a game vs the Brewers, April 7, 2017.

Yep. Tell 'em, Wash.

We need an emergency catcher, right?

Hmm, that's a creative suggestion. So how does this conversation go? Arte: Albert, you know 2021 is the last year of your contract, and there's $30 million left this year. Albert: Si. Arte: I can offer you an extra $30m on top of that... Albert: AY DIOS! PORQUE!!! Arte: ...on the condition that you don't get to play at all this year.

2020 draft picks can be named in trades as of the day after the World Series (new Trea Turner rule). So I don't think this means it's definitely a 2020 pick. It's almost certainly Rule 5 Draft related. And it's possible the Reds have a choice of players the Angels are offering.

The Phillies made Keynan GM already? Wow, they really are serious about trying to cut the budget.