MLB rumours 4

 

Use our rumors form to send us mlb trade rumors.

(single word yields best result)

If you didn't know, we have a NBA trade rumors site and a NFL trade rumors site

03 Dec 2018 17:36:51
Reds trade Nick Senzel

Padres trade Manny Margot and Jacob Nix.

Agree3 Disagree11

03 Dec 2018 21:11:54
I don't know why Cincinnati would do this. Margot is basically a Billy Hamilton with worse defense and less speed. He's probably a 4th OF at this point.

Nix is okay, but he's not a guy teams are lining up to trade for.

Senzel is a legitimately good prospect. They'd want much better talent to give him up.

03 Dec 2018 23:30:56
Before the arguments start setting in. consider the past two seasons:

Margot- .254 BA, .302 OBP, 28 SB, 21 HR, 103 R, 17 DRS, 7.7 UZR, 2.7 WAR
Hamilton- .243 BA, .299 OBP, 93 SB, 8 HR, 159 R, 13 DRS, 14.8 UZR, 2.5 WAR

They didn't even tender Hamilton a contract and he put up almost identical numbers.

If they wanted that kind production, they could've kept Hamilton instead of giving up a top 10 prospect for them.

04 Dec 2018 16:44:46
Margot is also 4 years younger, paid under a quarter less than hamilton was, under team control until 2023.

Perhaps nix wouldn't be the right pitching prospect in this case but a Morejon and add another lower ranked prospect could help. Like Gabriel Arias. let's not forget that most top 30 guys in the padres farm would be top 10 in a lotttt of farm systems.

04 Dec 2018 16:55:19
Let's turn this around:

Would you give up Fernando Tatis, Jr. for Manny Margot? Of course you wouldn't. You wouldn't even include him in a trade for Noah Syndergaard (who is objectively a more valuable commodity) .

You're essentially asking the Reds to give up a top 10 prospect for Manuel Margot, when the Padres wouldn't give up the same caliber talent for a much, much better player.

04 Dec 2018 17:35:48
didn't realize that senzel was that highly ranked. then let's say you replace senzel with saurez? how does this match up?

04 Dec 2018 18:14:54
Even worse for Cincinnati.

Suarez is coming off the best season of his career, and he's only 27 (doesn't turn 28 until July) .

He's under contract for the next 6 years, at least, and his contract is comically team-friendly. He's only owed 7.3M in 2019. You can't even get Mike Moustakas that cheap.

If the Reds really wanted Margot, I'm sure a package centered around someone like Shed Long would work.

Shed Long, Keury Mella, and some low-level prospect would be pretty enticing.

04 Dec 2018 23:11:40
If the Padres wanted Eugenio Suarez, it'd likely start with young pitching. something along the lines of:

Chris Paddack
Michel Baez
Hudson Potts.

05 Dec 2018 17:04:33
Stat is correct. Margot is still young, but he has not come close to realizing his potential given the opportunity. If the Reds were looking for that kind of player, Hamilton would still be in Cincy. Margot would fetch you more than what Hamilton would because of age and control, but not near that much from anyone, let alone the Reds.

02 Dec 2018 19:41:15
Marlins trade:
Jose Urena
Wei-Yin Chen
JT Realmuto
Jeff Brigham

A's trade:
Daniel Mengden
Aaron Brooks
Sean Murphy (C, A's #3 prospect)
Hogan Harris (LHP, #24 A's prospect)
Mark Canha
Emilio Pagan

I feel that Miami gets a pretty nice return for Urena and Realmuto and Brigham but i could be wrong...tell me

Agree3 Disagree7

02 Dec 2018 05:27:48
Cardinals receive:
3B Nolan Arenado
CL Wade Davis

Rockies receive:
SP Ryan Helsley (#4 prospect)
OF Ryan Arozarena (#6 prospect)
RF Dexter Fowler
C Carson Kelly
SP Luke Weaver

This trade fills the Cardinals two biggest needs of this offseason with a third baseman and star closer. The large haul heading to Colorado would help the team with a quick retool, giving them 4 young players along with Dexter Fowler, who spent his first 6 years in the MLB with the Rockies. With Arenado only having one year left on his deal, this trade makes a lot of sense, giving the Cardinals a solidified superstar and much needed closer, while the Rockies receive young assets for the future.

Agree4 Disagree11

02 Dec 2018 05:53:14
*Randy Arozarena my bad.

02 Dec 2018 18:44:55
I think it's close. I think Knizner or Gorman probably need to be included.

Also, adding in Fowler diminishes the value of the trade. The Cardinals could take Davis without adding Fowler.

02 Dec 2018 19:42:08
rockies ask for one more top 20 cards prospect.

05 Dec 2018 17:32:04
I think including Fowler tanks this trade. I also think one of their top guys has to be heading back to Colorado as well. These guys might be top 6 for the Cards, but neither is in the MLB top 100. It might only be a year of control for Arenado, but he's a perennial MVP candidate at this point.

01 Dec 2018 20:39:04
If Mets are in win-now mode, they shouldn't half step.
They should go all in.
Though I doubt they will, The all in approach I suggest is as follows:

1. Complete Cano / Diaz trade

2. Go after Mike Trout built around a package of Thor and Conforto

3. Sign Evoldi to replace Thor

4. Sign Harper to upgrade from Conforto

5. Sign defensive catcher Maldonado

6. Sign 2 relievers: example Robertson and Miller
Lineup:
1. SS - Rosario
2. 3b - McNeil
3. CF - Trout
4. RF - Harper
5. 2b - Cano
6. 1b -Frazier / Alonso
7. LF - Nimmo
8. C - Maldonado

Starters: DeGrom, Wheeler, Matz, Evoldi, Vargas

Pen: Diaz, Robertson, Miller, Lugo, Gsellman, comp for last 2 spots

Agree2 Disagree13

02 Dec 2018 05:06:25
This is probably the most unrealistic post I’ve ever seen in this site and that’s saying something.

02 Dec 2018 05:40:32
someone is delusional.

05 Dec 2018 17:40:29
I agree with a lot of this. That trade for Trout, however, is WAY off. What I would try to do is package Syndergaard and a prospect or two for Bryant. I feel like Syndergaard and Bryant are on the same level talent-wise, and have the same amount of control, but Bryant is an everyday player and has had some injury history. If they bring in Bryant, I think the Mets would become favorites to bring in Harper. That would solidify your outfield with him, Conforto and Nimmo. Mcneil, Cano, Rosario and either Frazier or Alonzo is your infield. You still need to do something at the catcher position, and that probably leaves them out on Grandal, but if they want to go ALL in, they could try for him as well.

05 Dec 2018 17:41:03
Do I think it happens? Absolutely not. But it is a plan that could work if the Wilpons weren't the owners.

01 Dec 2018 10:39:59
Another trade I have been trying to work out the details on.

ARI: SP Grienke, 1B Goldschmidt, 30 million dollars

TB: 1B Bauers, SP Baz, INF Fox, RP Stanek

By my math, Grienke has around 10 million dollar surplus value with his contract currently as is. That includes the remaining signing bonus payments (9M) and half of the deferred monies (31.25M) that would automatically be the responsibility of the Diamondbacks. Currently, any team that traded for Grienke would be on the hook for roughly 97M, including deferred monies and 2M assignment bonus, leaving roughly 10 million surplus.

Goldschmidt is a much more straight forward case, as his surplus value stands around 30 million for one season of control.

The 30 million dollars included in the deal would cover 5 million per season over the remaining 3 season and then half of the deferred monies still owed, roughly 15.625M dollars.

This would bring the total surplus value closer to 60-70M, which would net the Diamonbacks a more substantial package in return.

Headlining the package would be Bauers, #43 prospects heading into the 2018 season, who would be able to immediately slot into the everyday 1B role for the Diamondbacks. Also included would be Baz, a back end top 100 starting pitching prospect, Fox, a 45FV middle infield prospect, and Stanek, a back of the bullpen arm and potential closer.

With the money covered by the Diamondbacks, the Rays would be adding roughly 31M in 2019 commitments, which is well-within their available budget. Although Goldschmidt would only be under control for one year, the Rays have top 1B prospects Lowe and McCarthy close to the major leagues.

Agree5 Disagree15

01 Dec 2018 15:12:21
Everyone altogether now: SURPLUS VALUE IS A FARCE!

Besides, this is a bad deal for the Rays. Giving up a ton of years of team control for a rental 1B (a market which is very saturated) and an aging SP isn’t a good idea for a small market team like Tampa Bay.

04 Dec 2018 07:48:01
Are you just going to continue to respond with this pretentious rhetoric every single time? I sure hope not.

Surplus value is not a farce, it's an inexact science in a field that does not exist, a nice little piece in a much bigger puzzle. No one is claiming, myself included, that you should take surplus value as gospel. I never once implied such and it's insulting to suggest I did so. Clearly, there are tons of unprovable assumptions involved in establishing the metric itself. Surplus value is a good place to start when trying to judge what it would likely take to get a player in trade, but it’s not gospel and shouldn’t be taken as such. There are secondary forces at play, as you boorishly pointed out. However, there is a reason why more informed and astute minds than ours continue to utilize applications of surplus value.

Maybe just stick to trade analysis and not your misguided inference skills.

04 Dec 2018 12:59:20
Only if you promise to stick to inference and not your misguided trade analysis skills.

Deal?

04 Dec 2018 14:38:17
lol that was kind of a dick response but i'll take it.

04 Dec 2018 14:49:41
You threw a similar quip in at the end of yours, so don't act so innocent.

But let's be honest: surplus value guys are like the "mangosteen" guys. you know the guys who try to con you on some pyramid scheme energy drink and they tell you it has "mangosteen" in it and all the great things it can do.

And they think everyone in the room will buy it. They think they sound super-duper smart by saying it. And how could you challenge anyone who sounds super-duper smart?

And in case you do challenge me, then we start invoking the nerds. "But Fangraphs says it! " (Or, "However, there is a reason why more informed and astute minds than ours continue to utilize applications of surplus value. ")

But the moment one guy in the room challenges mangosteen guy on the validity of his argument, on the backing of his argument, he acts super offended and defensive that anyone would dare challenge him. He uses words like "pretentious" and "arrogant" and "this isn't gospel" and "get some inference, dude! "

You're mangosteen guy, bossmanjunior. And that's okay. But like mangosteen guy, you'll be peddling weight loss supplements after you've exhausted your argument and lost all those willing to listen.

04 Dec 2018 15:22:09
As far as surplus value, it’s just a thought exercise by bored baseball writers trying to find topics to write about. Nothing more, nothing less.

It ignores so many important factors in player valuation that I can’t fathom anyone actually takes it seriously.

So telling me it’s laughable about an idea (that was an obvious exaggeration for rhetoric purposes) and the push your glasses up, wipe the snot from your nose, and say, “BUT SURPLUS VALUE! ” Is also comical. You based your argument on a pseudo stat. Congrats.

05 Dec 2018 12:00:13
Good lord, man. I keep trying to bring this conversation to a close and then you take it down another tangent.

So just because we disagree about the merit of a stat, I am all of a sudden a conman running a energy drink pyramid scheme? I have to give you some props on that creative analogy. This has honestly become tantamount to talking politics. You know that just because two respective parties disagree on an issue, it doesn’t unequivocally mean that someone is objectively ”right” or “wrong” in their position. It’s ok to disagree on political matters and it’s sure as hell ok to disagree on the merits of a baseball stat.

“…he acts super offended and defensive that anyone would dare challenge him. ”

This is literally the opposite of what is happening here. I am getting “offended” that you are inaccurately defining my position. You are getting “offended” that I am challenging you among a community that you have endeared yourself with. From a distance, however, it appears you derive more pleasure from insulting these people, continually. Rather than offer remedy, you offer contempt.

Which brings me to the underlying question…what do you suggest as a surrogate? Clearly, I am the pretentious one because I reference “fangraphs” and have developed personal relationships with multiple baseball writers, so please, please tell me how do you analytically assess trades? You are the “stat” guy of course, your judgement must be rooted in empirical, objective data, correct? I would just love a look under the hood.

“it’s just a thought exercise by bored baseball writers trying to find topics to write about…I can’t fathom anyone actually takes it seriously.  ”

I am amused how you continually pretend that estimating “value” is not a critical and imperative element in baseball. It clearly is. Teams do not sign players or execute trades based on just past precedence, gut feelings, and prejudices. They calculate and project the intrinsic value involved to the best of their ability. These teams do a better job than the public blogosphere is capable of, due to resources, but it is not a fruitless effort. There is merit. I don’t know how many times I can say this.

This is, and has been, my position. Calculate the objective “surplus value” based on projections, the linearity of cost per win, and prospect valuations, then adjust for other immeasurable variables. This seems like a simple practice. It’s an inexact science, but it’s a good start.

05 Dec 2018 14:15:12
Also,

"Teams do not sign players or execute trades based on just past precedence, gut feelings, and prejudices. They calculate and project the intrinsic value involved to the best of their ability. "

This is true for many teams, and true for many trades. But I also think you overestimate the use of value metrics.

While most GMS go into a trade knowing who they want and what they're willing to give, and most of that was developed by some value metric, it's not as if GMs are sitting at their computer assessing the value of every player mentioned. Go find stories of how GMs trade players. Sometimes it's done at the dinner table or while golfing or having a beer. Sometimes it's done face to face in a 4 hour meeting, sometimes its a 4 minute meeting.

Some GMs get blindsided by trade offers and simply accept the deal on the spot, because it looks too good to be true. Question: do you think Brodie van Wagenen spent tons of time looking into "empirical, objective data" regarding Justin Dunn when he traded him to Seattle? Probably not, to be honest.

If every GM used "empirical, objective data" to make their trades, you wouldn't have trades like James Shields for Fernando Tatis. Teams wouldn't trade Zack Wheeler for 3 months of Carlos Beltran. The amount of silly, nonsensical trades suggests that you're patting your own back way too hard thinking metrics completely rule the roost when it comes to trades.

Even the very "analytic-driven" teams have made horrible trades. Go look at how bad that Carlos Gomez trade turned out for Houston.

Moral of the story: stop thinking metrics are so intrinsically valuable that they can't be challenged. Again, surplus value is simply a metric based on a couple of things: scouting report (future value), WAR projection, and contract estimation. None of this is remotely "empirical" as scouting reports change all the time. And many, if not most, prospects do not live up to their ranking.

I see surplus value blindly touted in many corners of baseball forum world. And it's guys like you who bought the drink because it has mangosteen, and now you think it'll cure cancer, autism, diabetes, and help with weight loss. You've overstated it's value, you're in too deep, and you're hoping others will buy in because it's all you've got.

05 Dec 2018 14:48:19
One last thing, and this has more to do with the "empirical" data. and perhaps this gives you a greater sense of why I feel surplus value is nonsensical

Let's use Arenado as an example:

In another post, you said that Arenado only has $20M of surplus value. That is, after we take his projected WAR and his projected arbitration salary.

In other words, you're suggesting that Nolan Arenado is worth Corey Ray or Micker Adolfo ($20M in surplus value, according to Fangraphs), straight up. Anything above that would, in terms of surplus value, be more than enough. That's what surplus value says Arenado is worth.

We can both agree that it's pure and utter nonsense, right? We can both agree that if the Rockies trade Arenado for the 88th or so best prospect in baseball that Rockies fans would be right to burn down Coors Field.

Surplus value equivocates actual value with projected value. This is largely why it's a farce, I believe. Because Arenado's "value" to a team is so much greater than some prospect they could send over.

Or think of Madison Bumgarner. If we estimate a win at being valued at 10M, Bumgarner is expected to have 9M in surplus value. Are you suggesting that the owners are going to trade its transcendent star for someone like Anthony Banda? That's what Bumgarner is worth?

I promise you, even the most analytical front offices don't think this way. The Rays wouldn't trade Bumgarner away for Anthony Banda. They wouldn't trade him for Corey Ray. Why? Because Bumgarner's value to the team in many ways in unquantifiable. The fans these stars put in the seats, the clubhouse presence, the marketability and revenue coming from major network games.

Surplus value assumes all things are equal, when almost nothing in baseball is equal, and very little "value" can be objectively quantifiable. It's a farce. And I wish people would stop referencing it.

05 Dec 2018 20:40:15
"Clearly, I am the pretentious one because I reference 'fan graphs' and have developed personal relationships with multiple baseball writers, so please, please tell me how do you analytically assess trades? "

First off, I don't know if you were being intentionally ironic, or if that came naturally.

Second, I assess many of the things surplus value does not: positional availability, organizational depth (the Giants would value a top 100 prospect differently than the Padres or Braves), performance, etc.

Surplus value has largely been to take the future value and slap a dollar sign next to the guy. It's hardly "empirical" and it's most certainly not "objective". I realize I've simplified it to some extent, but this is largely what it boils down to.

So, in order to agree with the surplus value, you obviously have to agree with the scouting report.

I applaud Fan graphs for coming up with some "system", but if you don't see the flaws in it, and if you're calling surplus value "objective, as you have ("Calculate the OBJECTIVE “surplus value” based on projections" [emphasis mine], then you've clearly bought into the scam. You're not running the pyramid scheme. You're trying to sell all the crap you bought from them.

01 Dec 2018 10:08:42
Kiley McDaniels said something along these lines was a fair deal and made sense for both sides....

CLE: SP Bauer

TB: OF Sanchez (#47), 2B/3B Duffy, RP Stanek

Rays get another elite pitcher to pair up with Snell, Indians get a longterm option in the OF and an immediate upgrade on the infield and at the back of the bullpen.

Agree7 Disagree6

02 Dec 2018 19:43:25
Why would cleveland take Duffy with their infield completely jammed.

02 Dec 2018 22:22:55
Duffy would be an upgrade over Kipnis. They'd slide Ramirez over to 2B and use Duffy at 3B.

04 Dec 2018 08:22:18
Exactly. Plus Kipnis is at least capable in the OF.

30 Nov 2018 17:59:17
Mets
Nolan Arenado

Rockies
Jeff McNeil
Andrew Giminez
Andrew Church


The Mets are looking for a RH power bat. The Rockies have a need at 2B. With LeMehieu a FA, the Rockies could use McNeil at 2B and call Rodgers up to play 3B.

Agree7 Disagree12

30 Nov 2018 18:52:54
If Arenado became available, the price would be about 10 times as much as you have the Mets paying.

01 Dec 2018 11:12:18
Not so sure I agree with your sentiment at all.

Arrenado is set to make around 26M in his last year of arbitration, and even as a 5 win player, that's only 20M surplus.

As of September, McDaniels and Longenhagen declared that McNeil was considered a 50FV player. By the end of the year, McNeil had produced 2.7fWAR in half a season in the majors and is projected for 3 fWAR according to Steamer in 2019, with 6 years of control remaining.

Giminez is the Mets top prospect (#30 prospect according to Fangraphs) . If you conservatively consider McNeil to be in the 75-100 range, that's roughly 58M of surplus value alone.

That should be more than enough. Teams are smarter and more analytically inclined nowadays. To suggest it would take 10 times more than almost 3 times Arrenado's surplus value is laughable.

01 Dec 2018 15:30:41
Surplus value is largely a farce. It's based solely on projections, which are subjective and vary from team to team, and is determined at a team level by positional availability, organizational depth, etc. For example: the Braves, who have Albies, likely won't value a 22-year-old 2B prospect as highly as the Mariners would.

Surplus value is good for one thing: putting a very, very subjective value on a prospect in a trade.

And your retort largely misses the point: trades aren't made in a vacuum.

If Arenado becomes available, the price tag rises, simply by the demand for a guy like him. You don't think teams like the Cardinals or the Phillies wouldn't go crazy, even a little stupid for a guy like Arenado? They'd blow past this price tag so quickly.

Not to mention, seeing what the Mets are (potentially) doing in the Cano trade, let's not pretend BVW has any idea what he's doing. If anything, it'd be HIM that does the extreme overpay.

01 Dec 2018 20:40:35
Arenado is a 1 year rental which decreases his trade value.

03 Dec 2018 14:27:10
thestatbook

Not sure if you realize he is a FA after the season. Show me a trade for an upcoming FA, in which a player received the value you're stating. McNeil and Giminez plus a lower prospect is right around what it would take. If you think a team is going to give "10x more", then you do not know how trades work.

03 Dec 2018 15:22:43
Show me a player who hit 38 HR, 132 wRC+, was worth 5.7 WAR; isn't owed a ridiculous amount of money and also plays a position where the only decent FA options are Machado (super expensive) and Mike Moustakas (super over-rated) who has hit the trade market.

Show me that player and I'll concede my point.

Arenado, if he were traded (don't worry, he won't be), would be the best player up for grabs, and he'd be more desirable than Machado or Harper on any club if for nothing other than his clubhouse presence and his abilities. The guy is amazing.

The "10x more" was an exaggeration. I figure you know how those work? The point was, there's no way that's the best Arenado gets the Rockies.

Then again, this is all moot when you consider that the Rockies are probably going to sign Arenado to a long-term extension to keep him in Denver his whole career (this move was signaled last year when Arenado dumped Scott Boras and went with the Wasserman Group who have historically worked favorably to extend star players) .

30 Nov 2018 15:36:05
Mets-Mariners deal


Apparently the deal is

Mets
Robinson Cano
Edwin Diaz
$60 million

Mariners
Jay Bruce
Anthony Swarzak
Jarred Kelenic
Justin Dunn
German Bautista

Agree9 Disagree2

30 Nov 2018 15:43:55
This makes Cano's contract 5 years $60 million. However, they also offset the Bruce/ Swarzak contracts and provide the Mets with an additional $36 million in salary relief there. In the end the Mets add $24 million in salary over the next 5 years for Cano and acquire the games top closer. I think the trade ends up pretty fair for both sides. Personally i wouldn't have traded Kelenic if I were the Mets, but for the price of a top closer with 4 years of control, i see the reason.

29 Nov 2018 15:45:04
Yankees
Robinson Cano
Edwin Diaz


Mariners
Jacoby Ellsbury
Sonny Gray (flip for more prospects)
Estevan Florial (#45)
Jonathon Loaisiga (#66)



I think this package is similar to what will happen if/when the M's move Cano. When you look back at the Braves/Padres deal in 2015 for Kimbrel and Upton, it was a very similar concept. The Braves packaged the best closer in the game who had four years left (just like Diaz) and a terrible contract (Cano) for two players out-of-favor with major league contracts (Quentin/Maybin) and two top-100 prospects (Wisler/Paroubeck). The Yankees need a 2B/SS while Didi is out. Cano can play 2B then slide over to 1B once Didi comes back while Torres shifts over to SS. Diaz gives them the best bullpen in baseball and a heck of a team overall.

Agree5 Disagree11

29 Nov 2018 16:51:23
At this point, I'll be shocked if:
1) The deal to the Mets isn't completed
2) Ellsbury gets traded. I see a less than zero percent chance any team actually wants the guy (and slightly above zero chance he accepts a trade) . If somebody wanted him in a bad contract swap, he wouldn't be a Yankee anymore.

29 Nov 2018 17:25:42
Yea i posted this before i saw the reports of the Mets trade. Apparently it's Bruce Kelenic and Dunn for Cano Diaz and salary. The concept was correct then in my Yankees offer. Just happened to be with the other NY team.

29 Nov 2018 17:42:49
There hasn't been much actual confirmation that the Mariners are willing to take back guys on large contracts in return. If they were, they likely wouldn't be including Edwin Diaz into the deal.

29 Nov 2018 18:05:34
If they're not taking back a contract, it will just be more money they include in the deal. However, new reports are saying McNeil could also be involved. IMO the more the Mets give up, the more the M's are covering in salary relief for Cano.

29 Nov 2018 18:08:02
I think this would have already happened if the Yankees wanted it to happen. I don't think the Yankees want Cano back, he has no place to play on there long term. Sure he could play second while Gregorius is out, but then what?

29 Nov 2018 18:19:16
I guess you'd have to see what you're getting from everyone, but it's not unrealistic to suggest they move Stanton back to the OF and let Cano DH.

29 Nov 2018 18:24:10
If the Mariners were interested in taking on cash in the deal, I don't think they'd be moving Edwin Diaz with Cano.

I think Dipoto is conning a rookie GM like it's a timeshare in Florida with this move.

30 Nov 2018 00:05:07
I agree he is taking advantage of a guy who has been an agent most of his career and never been in a front office. Dipoto is not a good GM, wasn't good with the Angels and infidelity not with Seattle, but he can sure con someone like the Mets GM.

02 Dec 2018 19:45:00
Every Yankee fan right now: "We can create cap by shipping Ellsbury, oh yeah just trade ells bury"

Reality: "theres no way in hell ellsbury gets traded"

29 Nov 2018 02:08:46
Houston Astros Offseason:

Astros/Royals

Astros:
- C Salvador Perez

Royals:
- OF Yordan Alvarez (#3 Overall Prospect) (#42 In Top 100)
- RHP Corbin Martin (#6 Overall Prospect)
- LHP Brett Adcock (#27 Overall Prospect)

Astros Free Agent Signings:
- SP Dallas Keuchel (5 years, $85M)
- SP Tyson Ross (2 years, $18M)
- RP Adam Ottavino (2 years, $20M)
- OF Andrew McCutchen (3 years, $36M)

2019 Astros Lineup:

C: Salvador Perez
1B: Yuli Gurriel
2B: Jose Altuve
SS: Carlos Correa
3B: Alex Bregman
LF: Andrew McCutchen
CF: George Springer
RF: Josh Reddick
DH: Tyler White

2019 Astros Rotation

1. Justin Verlander
2. Gerrit Cole
3. Dallas Keuchel
4. Tyson Ross
5. Josh James

2019 Astros Bench

1. INF/OF Tony Kemp
2. 3B/SS Aledmys Diaz
3. C Max Stassi

2019 Astros Bullpen

Roberto Osuna
Adam Ottavino
Ryan Pressly
Colin McHugh
Hector Rondon
Joe Smith
Chris Devenski

Agree4 Disagree8

29 Nov 2018 17:51:21
I think its too long and too much for McCutchen. I also don't think they will go after an OF that requires more than a one year contract to avoid blocking Tucker.

29 Nov 2018 17:53:55
1, I can't see the Astros adding $50 million in payroll (before arbitration) .

2, it would take more than that to acquire Perez.

3, I don't see them signing an OF beyond 1 year thus blocking Tucker who should be ready this season. I do like the Ross signing, but i think Kuechel winds up elsewhere next season due to his price.

29 Nov 2018 18:27:10
If it costs that much to get Salvador Perez, it's probably best to start the season with Max Stassi.

Perez is a serious buyer's beware type catcher who has gotten worse in almost every season. At 89 wRC+ last season and only 1.7 fWAR, I'm not sure any teams are willing to overspend for his future.

 


MLB Trade Rumors


MLB Trade Rumors 2


MLB Trade Rumors 3


 
Log In or Register to post

User
Pass
Remember me

Forgot Pass