GatewayRedbirds.com

MinorLeagueGuy wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:

MinorLeagueGuy wrote:What do the Cards have to give up to get Moose now that Marp is toasters? I mean that's a DeWitt dream contract, right? Unless I missed a NTC..

He can't be traded immediately, but I don't know the exact date.

Presumably he could've been had for 1 year at $10 million.

I'm not caught up on CBA's, but maybe June?

The Rays’ Modified Four-Man Rotation

by Craig Edwards - March 9, 2018

When discussing the possibility of the Los Angeles Angels’ use of a six-man rotation, I noted the importance of having starting pitching depth and no ace. To effectively deploy a four-man rotation, the opposite is true; indeed, it’s the presence of an ace and little rotation depth behind him that give rise to the unique possibility. A team also requires a deep bullpen and multiple players with minor-league options, so that, whatever starting depth the club does possess, can be easily moved back and forth between the majors and minors.

The Rays fit those criteria nicely. They have an ace in Chris Archer. After the trade of Jake Odorizzi and injuries to Brent Honeywell and Jose De Leon, the team has also taken a hit to its starting-pitching depth. The team does have a lot of bullpen pieces and features some starting depth, as well, as seen by our Depth Chart projections below.

The depth here doesn’t actually look too bad. Matt Andriese appears to be a capable fifth starter, while Yonny Chirinos and Ryan Yarbrough both experienced some success in Triple-A last season. Newcomer Anthony Banda, meanwhile, produced strong fielding-independent numbers in a brief MLB debut last season.

With eight pitchers capable of providing innings, doing away with the conventional five-man rotation doesn’t seem incredibly necessary. There is, however, a pretty distinct drop from the first five pitchers here to the next three. That drop-off, plus extra off-days built into the schedule, does make the four-man rotation possible.

Secret Weapon wrote:I feel like some of this stuff that's not worthy of its own thread is worthy of it's on thread

heyzeus wrote:

Secret Weapon wrote:I feel like some of this stuff that's not worthy of its own thread is worthy of it's on thread

Be the thread you want to see in the world.

Jocephus wrote:

The Rays’ Modified Four-Man Rotation

by Craig Edwards - March 9, 2018

When discussing the possibility of the Los Angeles Angels’ use of a six-man rotation, I noted the importance of having starting pitching depth and no ace. To effectively deploy a four-man rotation, the opposite is true; indeed, it’s the presence of an ace and little rotation depth behind him that give rise to the unique possibility. A team also requires a deep bullpen and multiple players with minor-league options, so that, whatever starting depth the club does possess, can be easily moved back and forth between the majors and minors.

The Rays fit those criteria nicely. They have an ace in Chris Archer. After the trade of Jake Odorizzi and injuries to Brent Honeywell and Jose De Leon, the team has also taken a hit to its starting-pitching depth. The team does have a lot of bullpen pieces and features some starting depth, as well, as seen by our Depth Chart projections below.

The depth here doesn’t actually look too bad. Matt Andriese appears to be a capable fifth starter, while Yonny Chirinos and Ryan Yarbrough both experienced some success in Triple-A last season. Newcomer Anthony Banda, meanwhile, produced strong fielding-independent numbers in a brief MLB debut last season.

With eight pitchers capable of providing innings, doing away with the conventional five-man rotation doesn’t seem incredibly necessary. There is, however, a pretty distinct drop from the first five pitchers here to the next three. That drop-off, plus extra off-days built into the schedule, does make the four-man rotation possible.

he maps out possible schedules in the article

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-ray ... -rotation/

Dontrelle Willis
9:11
Why do contracts ever include mutual options if they're never actually exercised?

Jeff Sullivan
9:11
Sam Miller, from last year http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/1851 ... -not-money
9:12
He found that, over two decades examined, just four of 100 mutual options were mutually exercised
9:13
Part of the function, I think, is that mutual options tend to come with a seven-figure buyout, so that pushes some of the cost into the future for the team
9:14
And mutual options also serve to inflate the terms. In the Mike Moustakas case, he signed for one year and $6.5 million, but it's easy to see there's an existing option that would make it an eight-figure deal. It won't *actually* be an eight-figure deal, but it just looks better, which is psychologically appealing

Nate
9:15
What is Moustakas' best case scenario for his contract next winter?

Jeff Sullivan
9:16
I mean, *best case* best case, he's an MVP this season and he signs for a fortune. But he should probably think about something similar to the Jay Bruce terms