Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Saturday's Strikeforce Results
Sprint-network-bar2 01

Padres / Reds Trade

San Diego trades Mat Latos to Cincinnati in exchange for Edinson Volquez, Yonder Alonso, Yasmani Grandal, & Brad Boxberger.

Your thoughts?

1. Will Rizzo get traded?

2. Will Alonso stay as a corner outfielder where he is sub-par defensively?

3. How badly does this hurt Alonso offensively?

4. When will Grandal be the starting catcher in Petco?

5. Will Boxberger be groomed to be a closer or is he a starter?

Finally--do we see Latos value dip a little as he is leaving Petco?

Tweet Comment 192 comments  |  Add comment  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from Minor League Ball

Prospects in the Mat Latos Trade

Dec 2011 by John Sickels - 96 comments

Top 50 Pitching Prospects from 2007: In Review

Sep 2011 by John Sickels - 22 comments

Top 50 Pitching Prospects of 2006 In Review

Jan 2011 by John Sickels - 44 comments

Around SB Nation

Cubs Trade Sean Marshall To Reds For Travis Wood, Dave Sappelt, and Ronald Torreyes

Dec 2011 from MLB Daily Dish - 0 comments

Mat Latos: Cincinnati Red

Dec 2011 from Roto Hardball - 0 comments

Edinson Volquez, Petco Park, And You

Dec 2011 from Roto Hardball - 1 comment

Comments

Display:

Padres farm

This might give the Padres the best farm system or at least tope 3 (not that it was that bad before).

by Cainyoudigit on Dec 17, 2025 2:05 PM EST reply actions  

this trade made me

slightly unhappy

as a Dbacks fan

by blue bulldog on Dec 17, 2025 3:04 PM EST up reply actions  

it made me happy as a DBacks fan

The Padres lose this one IMO.

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 17, 2025 3:52 PM EST up reply actions  

wow

. .you must really like Latos huh?

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 3:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Short Run

For the short run…ie the first half of 2012….I think the Padres lose out here:)

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 17, 2025 4:00 PM EST up reply actions  

just about

Latos is a cost controlled, 24 year old ace, and I don’t see Alonso or Grandal becoming anything more than solid, everyday regulars. The Padres also had Rizzo, so they can’t fully extract the value they get from acquiring Alonso (unless they plan on flipping one of them in a prospect for prospect trade)

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 17, 2025 4:02 PM EST up reply actions  

and also

I don’t see why the Padres are doing this now. They have more talent than most last place teams have, and it’s not like they filled in dire positions of need by acquiring Alonso and Grandal.

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 17, 2025 4:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Well

They ARE a last place team, after all. like you say.

I’d say that they are likely to be very good and preventing runs and, they need to get better at scoring them so, adding two young, lefty bats, who have some pop and will take a walk is a good start . . . and they got some pitching talent back as well!

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 4:20 PM EST up reply actions  

i wanted to see what rizzo could do, and now he has to be dealt which is making the gonzo trade look even worse. hundley was a solid catcher, not great but player good defense

by Noah McKinnie Braun on Dec 17, 2025 4:23 PM EST up reply actions  

This makes me think

. . that they won’t deal Rizzo at all, to be honest. Way less of a market for Rizzo than for Alonso, I’d think. Some of geeks on nghere may like Rizzo better but, major league GMs might look at Alonso’s actual, great, major league performance.

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 4:26 PM EST up reply actions  

But

It does make me re-think just how good of a prospect Rizzo is. Unless there is another brilliant move coming up, I’d say SD isn’t sold on Rizzo being their 1B of the future.

by guru4u on Dec 18, 2025 11:11 PM EST up reply actions  

"actual, great, major league performance"

Your asking GM"s to put more weight in Alonso’s big league numbers even though they far exceed his minor league rates.

The way I see it, Alonso is the better bet in the near term (1-2 years) with Rizzo having more potential in the long-term. Considering the gap in age (2 1/2 years) that’s not surprising.

After posting back-to-back 42 2b, 25 hr campaigns, Rizzo has set a precedent that Alonso has yet to do in the power department, and that came with the former being one of the younger bats in his leagues.

The teams more focused on getting contribution in 2012 would prefer Alonso, those that are in a more patient mode could very well prefer Rizzo, who has the added bonus of being a better defensive 1b.

Alonso in Petco could be a lot like Headley at 3b. Above-average bat partially masked by the park, with below average power totals for their position.

Will be interesting to watch how these two 1b progress over the next several years.

by Amish_Willy on Dec 23, 2025 3:34 PM EST up reply actions  

sure

but it’s a weak division and with some patching they could very well be vying for a a playoff spot.

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 17, 2025 4:48 PM EST up reply actions  

how is Latos an ace?

what’s your definition of ace? top ten arm in NL? top twenty arm in NL?

by blue bulldog on Dec 17, 2025 5:56 PM EST up reply actions  

top ~15 in the league

Latos has posted the 11th best xFIP in that span while also being the second youngest player in the top 11. There’s still room for more as he polishes his command as he matures, and even if he doesn’t, he’s still a rock solid top of the rotation arm and the #1 on most teams.

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 17, 2025 6:50 PM EST up reply actions  

#1 now for me

Yoenis Cespedes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9ge8l3jY8

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 17, 2025 3:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Wow.

Kind of a crazy trade. In a weird way a good thing for two elite blocked prospects, but they aren’t going to a great place to hit. As you point out, also weird for Rizzo. I HAVE to assume SD will be using Alonso at 1B exclusively, and giving Rizzo at least a full year in AAA, but they put themselves in a weird situation trading for a slightly better 1B MLB ready prospect, when they are the only other team in baseball with a good 1B major league ready prospect.

by auclairkeithbc on Dec 17, 2025 2:06 PM EST reply actions  

still think

that Rizzo is not as good of a 1B prospect as some people think

isn’t Alonso’s power of the doubles variety? that could play up in Petco. besides, if Rizzo is as good as ppl think, then he will be tradeable.

by blue bulldog on Dec 17, 2025 3:07 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't think

it’s a good idea to say that something is a bad deal because they are playing in a different park. Their actual value stays the same because of park adjustments, same with pitchers in Coors. Also pitchers going to Petco and hitters going to Coors have the same actual value. This is accounted for in WAR. Park adjusted stats are much better. wRC+ on fangraphs is probably the best park adjusted offensive stat, better than OPS+, but people still use OPS+ for some reason, you can also get park adjusted wOBA on stat corner.

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 4:01 PM EST up reply actions  

In the real world

.. where they actually play the actual games, players play better and, develop better (or worse) in basepball parks based on thier actuial skills. Not even any of this could hope to be accounted for in any of those stats. You are lost in a sea of numbers.

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 4:18 PM EST up reply actions  

A player who plays in coors field

and has the same park adjusted numbers as a player in petco park, but has better raw numbers is not more valuable

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 4:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Sure, in general this is true

. . but, a player can have skills that are better suited for a park which causes him to develop better as a player - there are a lot of other factors at play when discussing real payers on real teams. It’s more than just adjusting for the quality of park and, tweaking the stats.

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 4:34 PM EST up reply actions  

of course they can be more valuable to a particular team.

if your team plays in a park that has a short porch in right field, it certainly would behoove you to fill your team with hitters with power to right field instead of left field because, wait for it, that team will score more runs. your assumption is only accurate if every team has equally distributed skills. teams should and do leverage skills that play up in their ballparks (such as those accentuated by dimensions) or due to the skills of other players (pairing groundball pitchers with good infield defense / flyball pitchers with good outfield defense).

by larry on Dec 17, 2025 4:37 PM EST up reply actions  

This is true but

I’m talking about generic park factors, I don’t think Alonso’s value will take a hit.

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 4:41 PM EST up reply actions  

No

. . and your point is correct. This is exactly why trading a piotcher, for hitters, is a smart move by the Padres. Trade the perception of great picthing for, offense . . . rinse, repeat.

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 4:56 PM EST up reply actions  

looking at splits

there are just about as many home runs hit to left field in Petco as to right and to center

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 5:27 PM EST up reply actions  

actually that was wrong

looking at statcorner park factor for home runs is 59 for lefties, 95 for righties. Pretty amazing what Gonzalez did. Park adjusting his 2009 homers, that’s 50 homers. That’s probably not realistic, as Gonzalez is more of an opposite field hitter looking at the splits. But overall between lefties and righties, the lefty wOBA park factor is 90, the righty wOBA park factor is 92.

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 5:37 PM EST up reply actions  

I didn't say it was a bad deal

For them personally, it might depress their numbers. They probably felt confident they’d be moved, and I bet they would generally prefer a hitters park. That has nothing to do with how good they actually are or how good the deal is. I like it for the Padres, assuming Rizzo or Alonso is flipped.

by auclairkeithbc on Dec 17, 2025 4:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Hearing . . .

that Rizzo could be sent to Tampa Bay in exchange for Wade Davis.

The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.

by Savoy on Dec 17, 2025 2:11 PM EST reply actions  

"that Rizzo could be sent to Tampa Bay in exchange for Wade Davis."

I agree.

Not that I’ve heard the same rumor, but there has to be something else on the fire.

Moving Rizzo for a pitcher makes perfect sense.

by Kelsdad on Dec 17, 2025 2:23 PM EST up reply actions  

sorry Kel

missed this before posting.

by BryceHarper on Dec 17, 2025 2:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Package

Rizzo, Oramos or Fuentes, Mikolas, Brach - too much? Gives Rays some bullpen depth, their 1st baseman, and either a projectable starter or outfielder, depending on what they like.

by cookiedabookie on Dec 17, 2025 2:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Rizzo

There are a few teams out there that would make sense for a Rizzo deal. Rays being one and Wade Davis would be one of a few attractive arms that could be in the mix. Also the Cubs in a Garza deal makes sense. I could also see the Indians and O’s making sense with their uncertainty at 1B long term. I’m sure other teams come to mind as well but these just made sense off the top of my head.

Redbird Dugout
http://www.redbirddugout.com

by JDizzidy on Dec 17, 2025 3:24 PM EST up reply actions  

as a Cubs fan, I would love a Garza deal

with Rizzo as a headliner, and a couple other pieces like Kelly and Erlin.

by PrincetonCubs on Dec 17, 2025 3:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Cubs Fan

Can keep dreaming if you think Garza would bring back Rizzo, Kelly and Erlin! You aren’t even getting 2 of those guys in a deal. But if I am the Cubs I would definitely deal Garza for Rizzo as the highlight and another prospect or 2 and has upside but still a few years away. Cubs need to really revamp the farm as the club is in shambles right now so focus on making the future as bright as it can be. Very smart FO team now so its not anything that they aren’t aware of AND they have some guys that are very familiar with the Friars system.

Redbird Dugout
http://www.redbirddugout.com

by JDizzidy on Dec 17, 2025 4:07 PM EST up reply actions  

..and

the Padres aren’t looking to add pitching, let alone expensive pitching.

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 4:13 PM EST up reply actions  

well

Huston Street. haha.

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 17, 2025 4:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Sure

they paid a little extra to shore up the closer spot but, he was still a lot cheaper than Bell was going to be right?

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 4:21 PM EST up reply actions  

he went for 3/27 IIRC

and he’s a lot better than Street…though the Pads got picks by losing him, I suppose

by PrincetonCubs on Dec 17, 2025 4:24 PM EST up reply actions  

honestly

I’m not sure what the Padres are doing with this deal, if they’re paying Huston Street 24m over the next three years but trading Latos…I have to think the new FO is setting up some more deals with this one. Intriguing move, for sure, and I think they got a great return.

by PrincetonCubs on Dec 17, 2025 4:17 PM EST up reply actions  

They’re paying Street $8M over the next one year.

by realitypolice on Dec 19, 2025 4:52 PM EST up reply actions  

I wouldn't be surprised if he's dealt at the ASB with Volquez.

"When you find your way. Then you see it disappear."

by padmadfan on Dec 22, 2025 8:01 PM EST up reply actions  

hmm

I actually think Garza is more valuable asset than Latos, so I’d expect at least two of those guys. I think you’re undervaluing Garza in the NL (2.95 FIP last year, 5 WAR)

by PrincetonCubs on Dec 17, 2025 4:14 PM EST up reply actions  

But PC

Unless you are speaking purely hypothetically, the Padres are not going to give up prospects to acquire a more expensive starting pitcher than Latos - at all.

They were trading from strength to try and improve thier lineup and, I’d think they would continue with that. Not that garza isn’t better or, worse, than Latos.

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 4:28 PM EST up reply actions  

oh yeah, definitely hypothetical

but the Street trade makes me think they Padres are not going into full rebuild mode, and would possibly trade for guys the new FO likes. I have no idea if Garza is one of those guys, but he is still cost-controlled for two more seasons.

this was a pretty thoughtful article on what they might do this offseason:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/offseason-decisions-should-the-padres-rebuild/

by PrincetonCubs on Dec 17, 2025 4:41 PM EST up reply actions  

but it's also possible

they want to flip Street mid season to a contending team in need of some bullpen shore up, and they gave up nothing to get him.

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 17, 2025 4:52 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I think you are underrating Garza's value

Cost-controlled (expensive, but still cost-controlled) starter in his prime coming off an elite season in his prime. Those types of guys tend to get an elite prospect and at least another good prospect on the market.

Leaving that aside, I wouldn’t really care for Rizzo/Kelly/Erlin as a return for Garza. Personally, I tend to think all three are a touch over-hyped (and that the Padres system, while very good, is a bit over-hyped, even after this trade). I like Rizzo enough. Just not that huge on Kelly or Erlin.

All that said, could I see Theo and Co. accepting a Rizzo/Kelly/Erlin package if offered? Probably. I hope not, but probably.

The Cubs farm is in decent shape. It’s probably in the lower third right now, in that 20-25 area probably, but there’s quality upside in the lower levels, a high amount of pitching talent, and intriguing positional assets. It’s fallen off a bit, but trades and graduations will do that to a system.

by toonsterwu on Dec 17, 2025 5:14 PM EST up reply actions  

The big difference is that Latos has 4 years of control left, whereas Garza only has two, both of which are the most expensive of the controlled (whereas one of Latos is still pre-arb). Even if you figure Garza is the better pitcher, Latos almost certainly has (far?) more surplus value

by MjwW on Dec 17, 2025 6:03 PM EST up reply actions  

+1

You nailed it…I personally like Latos more than Garza but there could be an argument for Garza I guess. But the fact of having 4 cost controlled years vs only 2 is a HUGE difference in what you get back in a trade. There is no way in hell the Friars would deal those 3 for Garza…I doubt they would include 2 of them.

Redbird Dugout
http://www.redbirddugout.com

by JDizzidy on Dec 17, 2025 10:29 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't disagree

My comment on Garza was a direct response to the previous poster’s belief that he didn’t think Garza could net a deal that had value similar (as I don’t think San Diego would deal for Garza in general, so speaking hypothetically) to Rizzo/Kelly/Erlin. That said, I also noted that I’m just not as high on Kelly (never have been) or Erlin (think he’s solid, but not sure I buy that he’s a B+ type pitcher, which is what John gave him this year, I believe).

by toonsterwu on Dec 17, 2025 10:45 PM EST up reply actions  

If only there was some way of figuring out what sort of package of prospects it would take to land Matt Garza in a trade… where oh where could we look to get a sense of what sort of precedent has been set for Matt Garza’s trade value? It’s a shame there’s just no reasonable comp for Matt Garza in the recent history of trades!

by realitypolice on Dec 19, 2025 4:55 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

How is Garza cost-controlled?

Or is team-controlled a synonym for that phrase?

this isn't DRB
you don’t get a free pass for acting like a douchebag.
Derp
by Pikachu on Dec 11, 2025 2:44 PM CST up reply actions

by SandalsNoPants on Dec 18, 2025 12:05 AM EST up reply actions  

Yes, please

this isn't DRB
you don’t get a free pass for acting like a douchebag.
Derp
by Pikachu on Dec 11, 2025 2:44 PM CST up reply actions

by SandalsNoPants on Dec 17, 2025 3:30 PM EST up reply actions  

If they keep Rizzo and Alonso

couldn’t they just put Alonso in LF and Rizzo at 1B? Or is Alonso’s defense an issue. Don’t really know much about him defensively in the OF just hear about the bat.

by Pup Dog on Dec 17, 2025 2:14 PM EST reply actions  

Rosenthal reporting that Rizzo will be dealt

this off-season, and speculated that the Rays may have an interest and Wade Davis going the other way.

I wonder also if a package of Rizzo + another bat like Liriano or Darnell and C+ prospect would entice the A’s to deal Gio.

by BryceHarper on Dec 17, 2025 2:31 PM EST up reply actions  

i'm sure

that after this trade, the A’s will want a comparable package to deal Gio.

maybe it’s just me, but i think Alonso + Grandal + Volquez + Boxberger is quite a bit better than the package you just said

by blue bulldog on Dec 17, 2025 3:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Don't the A's have enough 1b prospects?

this isn't DRB
you don’t get a free pass for acting like a douchebag.
Derp
by Pikachu on Dec 11, 2025 2:44 PM CST up reply actions

by SandalsNoPants on Dec 17, 2025 3:31 PM EST up reply actions  

They have a lot of guys who own first basemen’s mitts, but I’m not sure any of them really count as either first basemen or prospects.

by realitypolice on Dec 19, 2025 4:56 PM EST up reply actions  

one would think

responding to the “what if” scenario of having Rizzo and Alonso on the same squad.

Heyman is now tweeting that the Padres may flip Alonso to another team instead…Rays would still make sense. Or, honestly, Cubs..

by PrincetonCubs on Dec 17, 2025 2:50 PM EST up reply actions  

"Heyman is now tweeting that the Padres may flip Alonso to another team instead.."

That does make more sense, especially if it’s to Tampa or another AL team.

The Rays still have Kotchman and a solid OF, so Alonso could DH full time, but Alonso alone wouldn’t get Wade Davis, so they’d have to add another player to make the trade work. (Grandal?)

by Kelsdad on Dec 17, 2025 2:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Alonso

is worth more than Davis.

by auclairkeithbc on Dec 17, 2025 4:49 PM EST up reply actions  

no no no no no no no no no no

that was terrible, we are NOT going back to that

by Noah McKinnie Braun on Dec 18, 2025 12:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Blanks wasn't bad in LF

Headley was a train wreck out there. Blanks can hold his own.

by walnut falcons on Dec 18, 2025 9:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Exactly, Blanks is an athletic dude that has trimmed down since he came up. He hit 23 homerun’s last year in his various stops, not bad fresh of TJ surgery, and with the Padres he struck out 30% less in 2011 then in 2009-2010.

Being a big strong righthanded hitter who can launch homer’s to his pull side is a nice fit for Petco. It’s how guys like Scott Hairston had so much success, albeit Blanks upsided is considerably higher.

by Amish_Willy on Dec 23, 2025 3:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Prospects with first name "Y"

Could this be the first time ever that two players were in the same trade where their first name begins with a “Y”?

The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.

by Savoy on Dec 17, 2025 2:18 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

Who were both born in Cuba

. . and both played for the Miami Hurricanes :)

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 3:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Its pretty common in Cuba

to have a first name with Y. There is even a movement called Generation Y but I don’t know where/why it started.

by DominicanDandy on Dec 17, 2025 3:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Generacion Y

Apparently came from Cuba’s time as an ally with Russia. People born during this time had an inordinate amount of first names starting with “Y”.

by killa on Dec 18, 2025 8:51 AM EST up reply actions  

And it spread

throughout the Caribbean. Yordany, Yefri, Yancarlos, Yoeli… lots of cool names have come into the minors in the last five years.

by realitypolice on Dec 19, 2025 4:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Wow

Reds certainly stepped up with a big time offer to land him. Grandal and Alonso were expendable for the Reds, I guess. Provided Latos can stay healthy, a nice deal by both teams, I think.

Also Volquez moving from Great American to Petco, could have a nice bounceback season.

by BryceHarper on Dec 17, 2025 2:19 PM EST reply actions  

hated this trade to begin

warmed up to it now. I like Grandal. Alonso will likely be better than Rizzo, although the ceiling probably isn’t as high. If Volquez can bounce back into even a Petco style #3 it would be a success.

by walnut falcons on Dec 17, 2025 2:57 PM EST reply actions  

Latos Value

Latos value is the same. He’s the exact same pitcher on the road as he is on the road. Identical numbers. Scary close.

scoutingthesally.com scouting service $17.95. Very cool service check it out.

by cubsfan1 on Dec 17, 2025 3:08 PM EST reply actions  

Should read

same pitcher on the raod as he is at home

scoutingthesally.com scouting service $17.95. Very cool service check it out.

by cubsfan1 on Dec 17, 2025 3:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Not really

Now his home games are in Great American Ballpark, which is a notorious hitter’s park. You can’t just say that because his overall road stats were close to his stats at Petco that his stats at GAB will look similar to his road splits from this year.

I would say his home splits will rise, but his road stats will stay close to what they were last year.

by BryceHarper on Dec 17, 2025 5:53 PM EST up reply actions  

RE:

While it is a VERY small sample size in 14 ip @ GABP era 1.94 and .111 BAA. I’m in no ay saying he will continue fulltime in Cin but again his road numbers and petco numbers are freaking identical. All I’m saying is he is a very consistent pitcher voer the last years no matter where he is pitching.

scoutingthesally.com scouting service $17.95. Very cool service check it out.

by cubsfan1 on Dec 17, 2025 7:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Not arguing that

I agree he has been very consistent. It’s flawed logic though to say that because his road numbers are the same as they were at Petco, therefore the numbers he will put up at GAB will be close to what his overall road numbers looked like.

by BryceHarper on Dec 17, 2025 10:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Pads top guys:

1. Rizzo
2. Erlin
3. Kelly
4. Alonso
5. Grandal
6. Sampson
7. Wieland
8. Spangenburg
9. Darnell
10. Oramas
11. Boxberger
12. Tate
13. Ross
14. Fuentes
15. Liriano
16. Tekotte
17. ……….. man it goes on and on and on

This isn’t the order i’d rank ’em just a list of some of thier talent

Yoenis Cespedes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9ge8l3jY8

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 17, 2025 3:10 PM EST reply actions  

I disagree

with Rizzo on top

by mgrich on Dec 17, 2025 3:44 PM EST up reply actions  

That isn't possible

. . because he JUST SAID that it wasn’t the order he would rank them so, you don’t disagree.

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 3:51 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I would put Rizzo 1st

but this isn’t a ranking so it’s stupid either way

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 4:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Why number them at all, i say?

He’s just messin’ with us :)

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 4:11 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah, meant to just list it with hiphans or bullets or whatever

But i think i still would have Rizzo in the top 2.

Yoenis Cespedes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9ge8l3jY8

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 17, 2025 8:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes.

No.
Lots.
Soon.
Closer.
Yes.

RIP Greg Halman

by WhyGodWhy on Dec 17, 2025 3:19 PM EST reply actions  

???

Why do say Latos value will be hurt by moving from Petco? Could he be hurt by Dusty? Hell yes. But simply his move from Petco is a non-factor. His numbers are bascially identical home/road splits. The only difference is a very small +0.40 era on the road. That could be easily swing the other way depending on a number of factors.

scoutingthesally.com scouting service $17.95. Very cool service check it out.

by cubsfan1 on Dec 17, 2025 5:35 PM EST up reply actions  

RE;

K/9 BB/9, BAA, OBP, SLG, Whip, hr/f%. all identical. It is basically no split

scoutingthesally.com scouting service $17.95. Very cool service check it out.

by cubsfan1 on Dec 17, 2025 5:38 PM EST up reply actions  

GABP is a hitter-friendly park.

His ERA will likely go up. I assume “value” in this case means either trade value or fantasy value, since his actual ability probably isn’t going to change.

RIP Greg Halman

by WhyGodWhy on Dec 17, 2025 6:35 PM EST up reply actions  

RE:

Will his home ERA, now in GABP, rise from his Petco 3.11? Yeah probably. But look at his road k/9 BAA OBP SLG OPS. It is his skill set that will play. I don’t think it will be huge. He’s bascially the same pitcher no matter what zip code the mound is in.

scoutingthesally.com scouting service $17.95. Very cool service check it out.

by cubsfan1 on Dec 17, 2025 8:10 PM EST up reply actions  

huh

Very nice opportunity to pick up a frontline starter in Latos, but not easy to give up Grandal. He wasn’t nearly as expendable as many here seem to be suggesting.

I like Alonso a whole lot more than Rizzo, especially for SD. In a park where HR power is suppressed, it makes a lot of sense to concentrate on pure hitters with respectable-but-not-premium pop. I just don’t trust Rizzo’s bat.

by mrkupe on Dec 17, 2025 3:39 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

I agree on Grandal

I think this deal has a very, very, nice realistic upside for the Padres. I’ll go on record and, say that if Alonso stays in San Diego he’ll become a very good major leaguer for them.

As far as Rizzo, I agree that the park is a terrible fiot for his skills but, I believe very much in his abilities somewhere else.

I also would say that this deal doesn’t say much for the Reds belief in Edison Volquez’s abilities, does it? He is going to be cheap the next couple of years himself, isn’t old, etc. I think he is perceived as a personality they wanted to be rid of though, which spells upside for San Diego. The best part of this deal is that it has a good chance to be a good one for San Diego, even if Volquez busts, which is possible.

It’s never ideal to deal a young, potential ace but, the Padres made it worth thier while, in my opinion.

Oh, and hey, Happy Hollidays!

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 3:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Pirates

Pirates need a long term first baseman. What do you think Rizzo costs them?

by Dorn on Dec 17, 2025 3:53 PM EST reply actions  

Good question

I’d say that one might be interesting, becuase the Padres are not looking for pitching i don’t think. A guy like Starling Marte would make sense because the Bucco’s are set in centerfield and, that is the type of player the Pads need. The Padres are set for years in centertfield though. Maybin is fantastic.

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 3:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Keep in mind

The Pads have a big park so you could use a few CF types in that park to run down balls in the gap. Marte was the guy I was thinking of as a potential swap for Rizzo. Though I disagree on your assessment that the Friars are not looking for pitching. Clubs are ALWAYS looking for pitching as you can never have enough pitching in your system. Buccos have a lot of pitching prospects that are attractive as well. Might be an opportunity to flip Rizzo for 2 high upside type of pitchers.

Redbird Dugout
http://www.redbirddugout.com

by JDizzidy on Dec 17, 2025 4:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Don't get me wrong

I like pitching too but, when a team deals thier ace for hitting prospects i think they are looking to find a way to score runs. I’d think they woukld be looking for something like that for Rizzo - as a first option - but, thats just my feeling on it.

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 4:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Balance

You got some hitting prospects that are exciting…but the balance is important. Personally if you can get premium position players in return (SS, C, CF) then you go get em. But if not I take high upside pitching.

Redbird Dugout
http://www.redbirddugout.com

by JDizzidy on Dec 17, 2025 10:31 PM EST up reply actions  

The Padres now have the best farm system

in baseball. No question about it I would go
1. Padres
Tons of depth, I love Erlin and Sampson. Just think about this Rizzo, Grandal, Alonso, Erlin, Liriano, Gyorko, Sampson, Kelly, Spangenberg, Darnell, and Wieland. That’s 11 top 100 prospects to me + Ross who is also fantastic and Boxberger is pretty good too. I might actually say 7 top 30 prospects.
2. Nationals
I think having a stud like Harper is such a boost to a system, I think Harper will have a career like Griffey. But the rest of the system isn’t anywhere close to a slouch either. I’m really high on Rendon and Peacock, I put them both in top 30 prospects, Rendon in top 15, I would give Rendon an A and Peacock a B+, then A.J. Cole is a great upside arm, so is Meyer, I think Derek Norris is getting underrated I love his walk rate. Goodwin and Purke also have very high upsides. I really like Lombardozzi too.
3. Blue Jays
I love their depth even though they lost Molina
D’Arnaud is IMO the 2nd best catching prospect in baseball. Gose is a stud. I love Hutchison, then Syndergaard is a really good pitching prospect, Marisnick and Norris have very high upsides. A lot more, but too many to say.
4. Cardinals
Four arms, that are very good. Miller and Martinez are studs, Rosenthal and Jenkins I think are going to have huge breakout years next year. Taveras and Wong are great bats, Lynn has a good upside and pitched well in the majors, Sanchez will be a great closer, Swagerty is a pretty god pitcher too. I really like Maikel Claito and Ryan Jackson.
5. Rays
Very deep with a stud prospect at the top, also have Hak-Ju Lee, but I’m not as big on the Torres, Archer, Colome, Romero, Guerreri group as most. I’m not very high on HS pitchers that haven’t played a game yet, they’re shown to be the least valuable, the most valuable are College hitters, HS hitters, college pitchers, HS pitchers. Guerreri has a very high upside but he is a HS pitcher, Romero has a high upside but has control problems, Torres has great upside, but also has control problems and may be a reliever, I think the same thing with Archer and Colome. I do think one of these guys will figure out control though, or maybe Guerreri could be good. I’m not as high on those guys as most, but they still have a ton of talent.
6. Royals
Still have 2 studs in Myers and Starling. Cuthbert looks like he could be on their level soon too. I am very high on Ventura. Bonaficio is also good. Montgomery is not as good as advertised, but still good, I still like Dwyer a lot. I think Lamb will have a season similar to 2010 after he comes back from TJ surgery, an amazing one. I’m pretty high on Odorizzi too.
7. Mariners
Tremendous pitching like the Diamondbacks and I love Catricala and Franklin. They also have Jose Campos and Fernando Martinez who I’m a lot higher on than most people.
8. Rangers
A lot of players who I think are all hype get ranked very high. I think Roman Mendez should be a C+ or a B-, not a B. I watched him when he was with the Red Sox and he had no fastball movement or fastball command, his secondaries weren’t very good either, maybe he’s changed, but he just looked like all velocity, nothing else to me. Tanner Scheppers and Jorge Alfaro are C+s to me. I can’t put a reliever that high and Scheppers isn’t that great. Alfaro has zero discipline and had an over .400 BABIP. My studies showed that walk rate correlates the best to major league success than anything else. I would give Odor a B-, not a B because he is so far away. I do like Olt a lot, same with Martin, but I’m really down on Perez.
9. Diamondbacks
I think the Diamondbacks barely beat out the Mariners for best pitching prospects, but it’s close now that they lost Parker. They’re position players are not good, but pitching is amazing
10. Red Sox this is not homerism, I’m not doing something crazy like putting them in the top 5. Tons of high ceiling lower level prospects in Bogaerts, Cecchini, Coyle, Jacobs, Swihart,Head. Then as a lot of people know, I’m higher on Iglesias than most people. I’m not as high on Middlebrooks or Swihart as most. Then they have Lavarnway, Ranaudo, Brentz, more good prospects, Lavarnway and Brentz can hit like crazy. No elite prospect, but very, very deep. Not that he should be considered a top 20 Red Sox prospect because of obvious reasons, but Ryan Westmoreland is now playing in baseball games, if he can return to his old level, he might be a top 20 prospect in all of baseball, he was a total stud before the brain problem, and most people considered him the best bet in the minors to go 30-30.
11. Rockies
12. Braves
13. Angels
14. Yankees
15. Pirates
16. Twins
17. Mets
18. Tigers
19. Orioles
20. Astros
21. A’s
22. Reds
23 Dodgers
24. Phillies
25. Cubs
26. Indians
27. Marlins
28.Giants
29. White Sox
30. Brewers

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 3:57 PM EST reply actions  

Your mental energy is amazing

I can’t believe you put that together that fast, Man :) the Red Sox ranking is almost reverse homerism or, some such effect I think. They have a ton of depth as well. I think they may be higher than 10th, to be honest.

The Padres thing is weird. Mr. Goldstein put them as having nine, four star prospects and, it looks like they added two more (depending how people view Alonso and Grandal). They have a LOT of guys who look like major league players but, few who look like stars. It is still a pretty, darnd good system though right now.

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 4:03 PM EST up reply actions  

I dont know if you can give Rendon an A right now

simply because he still has question marks about his shoulder. Prospects that receive “A” grades should be can’t miss and he still hasnt proven that the shoulder isnt an issue.

by Cainyoudigit on Dec 17, 2025 4:22 PM EST up reply actions  

maybe an A-

I really like his plate discipline though.

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 4:28 PM EST up reply actions  

I wasn’t trying to say he that he wasn’t good but I juts have trouble saying he is an outright A with his recent injury problems. If he would have played in the AFL i might be more inclined to give him the A status.

by Cainyoudigit on Dec 17, 2025 4:43 PM EST up reply actions  

I'd have the Braves quite a bit higher

and the Nats a little bit lower, otherwise looks pretty solid

Yoenis Cespedes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9ge8l3jY8

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 17, 2025 8:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Homerism

alert, but I think the Pirates are underrated here. Two top 10 prospects and plenty of other high-end prospects and solid depth. Hard to see that as a middle of the pack farm system, one spot ahead of the Twins.

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 17, 2025 10:02 PM EST up reply actions  

who

are the two top 10 prospects? Taillon and Cole?

i’d probably have them both slightly outside that range

by blue bulldog on Dec 18, 2025 2:04 AM EST up reply actions  

I'd move the M's and Rangers up

to the 3-5 range, along with the Blue Jays.

by cookiedabookie on Dec 17, 2025 11:38 PM EST up reply actions  

Cahill vs Latos

Who did better, the Padres or the A’s?

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 17, 2025 4:03 PM EST reply actions  

I don't know

Cahill wasn’t even very good, according to peripherals, his 2010 was a fluke, I agree. Latos is much better, but the Padres also got a better return. I would say the A’s though because I would take Parker over Alonso, Grandal is very good too, and Volquez is a good MLB starting pitcher, but I think Latos is that much better than Cahill

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 4:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Hmm

Lets see . . . the Padres by SEVERAL MILES?

I’ll admit I’m hazy on exactly how good the other two guys the A’s got, besided parker but, I haven’t heard anything great about them.

It’s hard to even come up with a scenario, short of parker becoming a superstar, that the A’s got a better haul. then again, Cahill isn’t quite as good as Latos perhaps.

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 4:06 PM EST up reply actions  

I just don't think Cahill is very good

his career SIERA is 4.41 and his ERA came way up this season, it dosen’t look like he has the Matt Cain/Clay BUchholz/Ted Lilley/Mark Buehrle ability to consistently outperform peripherals, and his peripherals are lousy, I think 2010 was the fluke year, not 2011. I agree with casejud that the haul the Padres got was a lot better, but Latos’ career SIERA is a full run better. Latos might be better than his SIERA too, since his other peripherals, his tERA, FIP, xFIP are all better than his SIERA.

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 4:11 PM EST up reply actions  

You and your dang numbers!

I tease you but . . .

I love how Cahill supposedly had a “fluke season” then backed it up with another good season, in which he tossed 207, dang effective, innings?. So what if he had a great ERA one year and, a worse one the next. How about some credit for tossing 11 more innings than 2010 and, fanning 29 more guys

since you dislike ERA so much, why are you so obsessed with it. Just combine the two seasons and, he’s been a very good pitcher the past two seasons . . and he has outperformed his peripherals. Isn’t that exactly what makes him so overrated to you? Why else would he be overrated to anyone If he hadn’t? Lol

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 4:51 PM EST up reply actions  

His 2011 season

is probably where his talent level is. It was an OK season, his peripherals and ERA were below average, and I think his 2011 season is very close to his talent level. I think that he dosen’t have the ability to consistently outperform his peripherals because he’s only done it one season, the rest of the years he was about even, look at Matt Cain
ERA is lower than FIP in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. That is the ability to consistently outperform peripherals. Clay Buchholz outperformed his FIP in 2009, 2010, and 2011, but in the minors, he outperformed his FIP at every single level except a couple times when he was below 50 IP. Mark Buehrle has outperformed his FIP 7 out of the last 8 years. Many historical players like Tom Glavine did it too. Knuckleballers do it. many saberists believe that there is no skill to outperform FIP, I do but I don’t think Cahill has it. I think if MLBAM releases hit f/x to the public, we’ll find that Cain, Buchholz, Buehrle etc induce weaker contact. my theory is that these pitchers have very good command and pitch in batters weak zones, if we get hit fx and command fx I can verify this, it’s a shame MLBAM hasn’t released them to the public(along with field f/x which looks absolutely fantastic). Any way back on topic Cahill has only outperformed his FIP 2 years, and in 2009 he didn’t even outperform his xFIP by that much. I don’t think he has that ability.

sorry for writing a short novel

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 5:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Amazing

Its amazing that you need all this reearch to get back to where people were 100’s of years ago - that pitchers have an effect on hitters timing! Amazing finding.

Cahill gets a lot of sink on his pitches. Yoi can watch him for one start and see that. He also hangs some and gives up some longballs.

Sorry, I’m cranky today.

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 5:08 PM EST up reply actions  

looking at Cahill's pitch f/x

his fastball does drop 1 inch lower than the average fastball, his 2 seamer drops 2 more inches than the average 2 seamer. That’s nothing compared to a Justin Masterson (wish we kept him so much) who’s fastball drops 6 inches more than the average fastball, but it’s still something. SIERA does include groundballs though, and I found that pitchers with more sink on their fastballs get more groundballs but don’t neccesarily outperform their SIERAs. That’s why I think his SIERA is about right and the fact that his peripherals were in line with his ERA this year, makes it seem he dosen’t have that ability

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 5:16 PM EST up reply actions  

FWIW

Cahill’s 2011 is better than any single Latos season.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 17, 2025 5:40 PM EST up reply actions  

2011?

I assume you mean 2010 which I don’t think was better, because it was almost entirely dependent on luck. I assume you think it was better because of wins, and I don’t want to get in another huge argument about them, but I think that they are not a very good statistic because run support determines them a ton. Like look at Josh Beckett and John Lackey, Beckett was obviously a much better pitcher, but Lackey only had 1 less win because he had a 6.75 run support/9 innings 3rd in the entire MLB min 130 innings, Beckett had 4.34 run support/9 innings. Tim Lincecum was a great pitcher, but his RS/9 was 2.94, the lowest in the entire MLB qualified so despite his 2.74 ERA he went 13-14

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 5:49 PM EST up reply actions  

No

I mean Cahill’s 3.5 WAR 2011 was better than Latos’s best year, his 3.2 WAR 2010. Cahill’s 4.0 WAR 2010 was also better than anything Latos has done, and when they were both 21 year old rookies, Cahill had 1.9 WAR while Latos was negative. Cahill has outperformed Latos three consecutive years, and has the two best years between the two of them.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 17, 2025 5:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Are you using fangraphs or baseball reference?

I usually use fangraphs to measure talent for pitchers, and baseball reference for MVP discussions. FIP does a better job at measuring true talent than defensive adjusted ERA. I use B-ref for MVP discussions because MVP is most Valuable, and a pitcher who wasn’t as good as his b-ref WAR said still contributed those wins to the team, and thats valuable. I use fangraphs for hitters for true talent and MVP discussions because UZR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TZ.
So in this case I would use fangraphs WAR because we’re trying to find out who’s the better pitcher, not who had the more valuable season. Cahill’s high is 2.5, Latos’ is 4.0.

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 6:06 PM EST up reply actions  

My Philosophy

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me three times and a straight Marcel with no adjustments is best.

I definitely use rWAR, even for pitchers when we’re talking about such a big sample. These guys have three seasons experience and 4200 batter faced between them (Cahill 2400, Latos 1800). The noise surrounding their run prevention skill is considerably muted.

Ideally I’d be regressing them towards a different mean, with Latos’s slightly better, but even that isn’t going to make Latos come out better.

2012 WAR Marcel=Cahill 3.1, Latos 2.3.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 17, 2025 6:21 PM EST up reply actions  

it depends on what metric you

want to use. Over a full carer I use rWAR, but these guys aren’t close to a full career

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 6:37 PM EST up reply actions  

that's baseball reference

and it still heavily relies on Cahill’s fluke ERA in 2010. Not only that, but Latos has logged a ton of innings either, but that’s perfectly normal for someone his age.

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 17, 2025 6:54 PM EST up reply actions  

No Flukes

When you take a three year average (or weighted average), there are no flukes. Latos and Cahill have prevented runs at a similar rate given their league/park over 1800 or 2400 BF.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 17, 2025 6:57 PM EST up reply actions  

that doesn't make any sense

are you saying Cahill’s 2010 doesn’t affect his overall performance? Unless you’re saying that his 2010 wasn’t a fluke, in which case I disagree.

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 17, 2025 7:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Three Year Average

What I’m saying is, a three year average is a three year average. It doesn’t matter how he went about getting there.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 17, 2025 7:26 PM EST up reply actions  

except three year averages are far from the end all be all

If he gets lucky one year and performs as he should for two years then he still got lucky overall.

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 17, 2025 7:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Maybe

Or maybe what you see as him being lucky is him actually performing at his true talent, while he’s been unlucky the other two years.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 17, 2025 7:39 PM EST up reply actions  

no,

that Cahill’s 2011 was the attrition and not his 2010

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 17, 2025 8:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Evidence

What evidence do you have that his 2010 was the outlier? Or, what evidence do you have that 2011 wasn’t an outlier?

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 18, 2025 1:26 AM EST up reply actions  

you can look at just about any fielding independent stat

Cahill posted an abnormally low BABIP of .236 and stranded 76.5% of base runners, a lot more favorable than what pitchers are capable of repeating. In 2011, both numbers regressed to normal and his ERA went with it.

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 18, 2025 2:42 AM EST up reply actions  

You Mean

His BABIP regressed towards the population mean? I would have never guessed that would work!

The question is, how much will his three year average of .a 274 BABIP with 2400 BF and 1768 BIP regress?

You see, you don’t just get to pick one year and say you think that’s his talent so we’ll just drop his good year. You have to use all the data…unless you have evidence otherwise. I mean, perhaps Cahill had a TJ surgery that I don’t know about. He could have possibly had a bionic arm in 2010 that was removed before the 2011 season. Or maybe, just maybe he had Tebow backing him in 2010. Without something along those lines, you don’t just get to say 2010 was a fluke and not count it.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 18, 2025 3:46 PM EST up reply actions  

BABIP of the Two Pitchers In Question

I’m just taking straight averages here, for the sake of ease.

Cahill has a three year average of .274 in 1768 BIP. For BABIP, you regress 3729 BIP towards the population mean. For the AL, that was .296 from 2009-2011. That makes Cahills regressed BABIP .289, an increase of 15 points. During that time, he had an ERA+ of 107 in 583 IP.

Latos had a BABIP of .279 over those three years in 1145 BIP. The NL mean was .298 for the time period. That makes Latos’s projected BABIP .293, a gain of 14 points. His ERA+ over this time was 108.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 18, 2025 3:58 PM EST up reply actions  

so what exactly are you saying

that Cahill wasn’t lucky in 2010? Or are you saying that players can’t be aided by luck over three seasons?

You don’t need to have a fluke performance for all of the time you pitch for; just a portion of it, and that influences your overall numbers, which is why b-ref has given Cahill a kind score.

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 19, 2025 3:58 AM EST up reply actions  

Again

There is always going to be variance around a true talent level. But you don’t know the true talent level of Chaill!!! Neither do I. Neither does Sickles. That is the point. You can’t call 2010 a fluke without knowing the true talent level! All you have is an estimate of his true talent level. A three year average (weighted if possible) regressed towards the population mean is the best statistical estimate of true talent. 2010 is a data point within that three year average. It can not be discarded.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 19, 2025 4:40 PM EST up reply actions  

is that why

his 2010 was by far the best season he’s had so far? Is that why his peripherals simply didn’t match up that year, and his ERA went on to stumble the year after?

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 19, 2025 5:48 PM EST up reply actions  

What?

You can say the same thing about every single player in MLB! They have a true talent level, and the production varies around that talent level. They all have highs and lows. You don’t throw out the high…you take the average.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 19, 2025 6:38 PM EST up reply actions  

except Cahill has never been unlucky

which would make his performance to date as being better than what he’s actually capable of. The average doesn’t work.

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 19, 2025 8:27 PM EST up reply actions  

You Don't Know

How could you possibly know if Cahill has never been unlucky without knowing his true talent level?

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 19, 2025 8:49 PM EST up reply actions  

you know that based on his peripherals

are you honestly going to suggest that nothing about his them illustrate his talent level?

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 19, 2025 9:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Sure

The peripherals* suggest something about his talent. So does his runs allowed. So does the number of innings he’s pitched**, pitch velocity…etc.

*Not that you know the true talent of his peripherals. You only have an estimate based on his three year weighted average regressed towards the population mean. FWIW, HR/FB, which Cahill has been “unlucky” so far in his career, takes even longer to regress than BABIP.

**Here’s a challenge. Take a look at all the pitchers who have had similar peripherals in as many innings as Cahill and tell me how they perform from age 24-27.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 19, 2025 10:30 PM EST up reply actions  

except

pitchers don’t control a large portion of the runs they allow, and it varies way too much year to year to hold any weight. Pitch velocity has little effect once you weigh in all the other factors that are present in pitching.

What you don’t seem to understand that if you have to neutral luck seasons and one lucky year, the overall net result of that means the pitcher has been lucky. Cahill has also shown no signs he’s capable of repeating that performance, and when that year deviates so much from his other performances, why should it really hold any weight when talking about his actual skill level?

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 20, 2025 9:41 PM EST up reply actions  

No!
pitchers don’t control a large portion of the runs they allow, and it varies way too much year to year to hold any weight.

We are not talking about year to year. We are talking about a three year average and 2400 batter faced. At that point, runs allowed tells you as much as anything.

What you don’t seem to understand that if you have to neutral luck seasons and one lucky year, the overall net result of that means the pitcher has been lucky.

What you don’t seem to understand is, you don’t know if Cahill has been lucky or not! In fact, in terms of understanding, this is about as crucial as it gets in terms of forecasting future MLB performance (or weather models or human behavior or whatever you are trying to predict). When you ignore data, you are tainting the sample which negatively affects the output.

Pitch velocity has little effect once you weigh in all the other factors that are present in pitching.

This is just flat out wrong. If you have two player with identical stats over any given timeframe, the one who throws harder projects better in the future. That is to say, the one who throws softer is more likely to have been lucky over that sample.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 21, 2025 1:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Haha. Pressed post instead of preview
Cahill has also shown no signs he’s capable of repeating that performance, and when that year deviates so much from his other performances, why should it really hold any weight when talking about his actual skill level?

The reason it carries weight is because he did it. In order to have a true talent ERA of 3.91 (in the AL, in Oakland…etc) he doesn’t need to repeat his 2010 performance…ever. He just needs to have an ERA of 3.91!

Cahill’s career performance is no worse than a guy who put up an ERA of 3.91 in three consecutive years. In fact, it’s better! His better production is more recent. Cahill’s three year weighted ERA is about 5 points better than if he had pitched a 3.91 ERA all three years.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 21, 2025 1:47 PM EST up reply actions  

We are not talking about year to year. We are talking about a three year average and 2400 batter faced. At that point, runs allowed tells you as much as anything.

It’s not that simple. A pitcher who posts ERA’s of 5 and 3 is not necessarily a 4 ERA skill level pitcher. That’s middle ground fallacy. Again, and please understand this, two neutral luck seasons and one lucky one will still lead to a result of an overall lucky performance.

We are not talking about year to year. We are talking about a three year average and 2400 batter faced. At that point, runs allowed tells you as much as anything.

Generally yes, but that needs to be judged on a case by case basis.

What you don’t seem to understand is, you don’t know if Cahill has been lucky or not! In fact, in terms of understanding, this is about as crucial as it gets in terms of forecasting future MLB performance (or weather models or human behavior or whatever you are trying to predict). When you ignore data, you are tainting the sample which negatively affects the output.

Yes, I do know that he was lucky, and I’m not an all knowing figure nor do I claim to be. Except it’s obvious based on every single piece of credible evidence that his 2010 was a massive deviation from his skill level. If that season wasn’t a fluke, he would have outperformed his peripherals again in 2011, but he didn’t, and what you can derive from his underlying stats accurately depict what his ERA should have been, and his ERA fell into that range.

This is just flat out wrong. If you have two player with identical stats over any given timeframe, the one who throws harder projects better in the future. That is to say, the one who throws softer is more likely to have been lucky over that sample.

I never said otherwise. Obviously when all else is equal the guy with the higher velocity will be the better pitcher, but what I said was in the grand scheme of things, when all the other factors in pitching are taken into account, velocity doesn’t have a huge impact.

The reason it carries weight is because he did it.

That’s incredibly faulty logic. You’re pretty much saying that players who get lucky (and Cahill has only done it once) have higher skill levels than others. Players don’t control luck. And they should not be given credit for it.

In order to have a true talent ERA of 3.91 (in the AL, in Oakland…etc) he doesn’t need to repeat his 2010 performance…ever. He just needs to have an ERA of 3.91!

You’re beating a straw man. That’s not even what the argument is about. Cahill hasn’t been a 3.91 ERA talent pitcher because his 2010 season drove down his ERA dramatically. Players don’t naturally have ERA’s that vary by over a run year after year, and it’s ludicrous to believe that.

Cahill’s career performance is no worse than a guy who put up an ERA of 3.91 in three consecutive years. In fact, it’s better! His better production is more recent. Cahill’s three year weighted ERA is about 5 points better than if he had pitched a 3.91 ERA all three years.

So, what, inconsistency is a good thing?

Besides, what evidence is there that Cahill’s 2010 wasn’t fluky? Simply saying, “he did it,” isn’t good enough. Players get lucky and there’s no denying that.

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 21, 2025 7:32 PM EST up reply actions  

OK

We’re running in circles here. I’m going to break this down into two components; which stats to use and how to use them. One is arguable, one is not.

If you want to use statistics, you have to use the same parameters for the entire population. You can’t just say I think he was lucky so it doesn’t count. This is an indisputable fact. If you don’t use Cahill’s lucky years, you can’t use anybody’s lucky years. Unfortunately, that means you can’t use their unlucky years either, which leaves you with a sample of zero.

What we should be focusing on is which stats (data points) to use. You are going with strictly peripherals (presumably K%, BB% and either GB% or HR%). I am saying after 2400 batter faced, straight runs allowed is better. Even better than that is using runs allowed, peripherals, innings, pitch velocity and anything else that would help us identify the true talent of Trevor Cahill. If you want to debate this stuff I’ll listen. Just don’t go throwing data out of the sample.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 21, 2025 9:02 PM EST up reply actions  

How can we know anyone's true talent level then?

There is at least a reasonable ability to determine a player’s skill level given a player’s peripheral stats. Is it 100%? No, but not much is. Could he be a Matt Cain? Sure, but he has to prove it still.

by cookiedabookie on Dec 19, 2025 9:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Exactly the Point

There is a very reasonable way to determine a players true talent. You take a three year average and regress towards the population mean. You don’t get to throw out the good year because you think it was a fluke.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 19, 2025 10:22 PM EST up reply actions  

MARCEL is good

but an OLIVER or something like that is much better, I think OLIVER is the best now, it considers all of the players years with the more recent years weighted more heavily unfortunately, it costs money and there is no calculator. CHONE used to be the best and it was free but sean smith got hired by an MLB team, so CHONE is gone.

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 8:20 PM EST up reply actions  

3.2 vs 3.5 WAR

I would say those are pretty even, giving WAR a reasonable margin of error. If the difference was a full WAR, then that would be one thing.

by cookiedabookie on Dec 17, 2025 11:42 PM EST up reply actions  

this

Padres blew the Athletics’ return out of the water

by PrincetonCubs on Dec 17, 2025 4:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Latos definitely better

but not by too much, I don’t think, at least not as much as the disparity in returns would show. (I am a Cahill fan, though.)

by PrincetonCubs on Dec 17, 2025 4:59 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't know about blowing them out of the water

I think the Padres did better, but I think the A’s got the best talent in either deal, and teams place high value, sometimes overvalue, elite young pitching prospects, and Parker certainly has elite potential. Add in that, on talent, Latos is better, and I think the Padres did better, but I’m not sure it’s by that much.

And I’m not even a gigantic Jarrod Parker fan, but he does have the potential to head a rotation if all goes well.

by toonsterwu on Dec 17, 2025 5:19 PM EST up reply actions  

that's fair

I may be over-approving of this deal because: 1) I think Cahill is undervalued; 2) I wouldn’t have done that Cahill deal without a much better 2nd piece than Cowgill; 3) I think the Reds substantially overpaid for Latos, who I feel is better but not much better than Cahill

by PrincetonCubs on Dec 17, 2025 5:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Just goes to show

how much Theo completely ripped off the Padres. Gonzalez is a 6.6 WAR player (if you like stupid traditional stats .338 117 RBIS) and Theo got him for Kelly who still has great stuff but hasn’t performed, Rizzo who is very good but not enough and Fuentes, a complete lottery ticket. The return for Latos was so much better than the return for Gonzalez, I know Latos is much younger and cheaper and more years left, but Adrian is a top hitter in the AL for those 3 prospects.

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 4:38 PM EST reply actions  

I don't think you can say that yet, because

1) You have to wait and see what Kelly, Fuentes, and Rizzo turn into. All still have a lot of potential ahead of them.

2) You need to still add whatever Rizzo gets flipped for.

3) Gonzalez is not equivalent to Latos because the latter is cost-controlled for longer, and because everyone knew the Pads were backed into a corner w/ respect to Gonzalez. I know you are tryign to acknowledge this a little in your last sentence, but I don;t think it can be brushed away so easily.

The Pads got three very useful prospects with upside for a guy that everyone knew they couldn’t afford. And we still don’t know how those prospects will turn out.

Also, add whatever pieces the Pads get if they flip Rizzo.

by siddfynch on Dec 17, 2025 5:04 PM EST up reply actions  

whoops

ok, no more typing fast.

by siddfynch on Dec 17, 2025 5:05 PM EST up reply actions  

To build on the point in #3

Let’s try to estimate surplus value (all WAR numbers 50/50 fWAR/rWAR, $5M/WAR for 2011/12, 5% salary inflation)

Gonzalez had one year left, and put up 6.75WAR, for a value of 33.75M, while he was paid $6.3M, so the surplus is roughly $27.5M. The Padres could also have got 2 good picks when he left, so you can add maybe $5M to that. Total: About $32.5M surplus

Latos has averaged 3.25 WAR across his first two seasons, but he just turned 24 so I’m going to estimate 3.5 WAR across the next 4 (this is probably a bit conserative if anything, but it’s fine for rough approximation). So that’s 14 WAR across the next 4 years. Figure he gets paid at 40/60/80 his market value across the his arb years, and $500K next year. That measn he has surplus of $17M, $11, $8, $4, or roughly $40M total. That’s before any draft pick compensation if he leaves a FA, as was included in Gonzalez. If you add +0.25 WAR/year until age 26 and then flatline, the surplus increases by about $3M.

So the surplus value for Latos was something like $10-15 more than Gonzalez, or roughly 25-50% more
SO there’s more valu

by MjwW on Dec 17, 2025 6:20 PM EST up reply actions  

yea, but

I was saying Gonzalez was a steal because the haul the Padres got for Gonzalez was not close to this haul

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 6:39 PM EST up reply actions  

To be clear

I wasn’t trying to taking a position one way or the other, frankly, I don’t know enough about valuing prospects in general or enough about these guys in general (hence why I read this site). All I was doing was trying to quantify the point made by the poster above.

That said, I still don’t necessarily agree with you. You said

The return for Latos was so much better than the return for Gonzalez, I know Latos is much younger and cheaper and more years left, but Adrian is a top hitter in the AL for those 3 prospects.

So we’ve dealt with the (approximate) value of Gonzalez and Latos, and now we have to look at the cost of each. I’d agree that the return for Latos was better, but the question is by how much, since we’ve established Latos had more value. So, it would seem to me that the onus is on you to establish that the extra prospect cost for Latos exceeded the extra value.

by MjwW on Dec 17, 2025 6:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Rec'd

scoutingthesally.com scouting service $17.95. Very cool service check it out.

by cubsfan1 on Dec 17, 2025 5:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Hit Flag...

…on accident. should have been a rec sorry.

scoutingthesally.com scouting service $17.95. Very cool service check it out.

by cubsfan1 on Dec 17, 2025 5:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Hey!

Youi flagged me! lol, jk

" A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you, as a human being, intact." - Louis CK

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 5:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Sorry man. LOL

Sent a message stating my mistake bud.

scoutingthesally.com scouting service $17.95. Very cool service check it out.

by cubsfan1 on Dec 17, 2025 5:19 PM EST up reply actions  

good thing

case is on thin ice around here

by auclairkeithbc on Dec 17, 2025 5:21 PM EST up reply actions  

lol

zing

I am looking for a job writing about baseball - collaborations, articles, scouting reports, research, anything baseball related I will try and help you. Samples available on request. - Casey

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 5:22 PM EST up reply actions  

batting average does mean something

it actually tells us a lot about a player’s value. But WAR includes batting average and it weighs different hits more if they are more important and it also includes walks. Home runs are like batting average. RBIs I feel are useless though. They are almost all dependent on RBI oppurtunities. go to http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2011-situational-batting.shtml and sort by base runners. This almost mirrors the leaders in RBIs. Base runners scored % does not have that much affect on RBIs.

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 5:22 PM EST up reply actions  

But they are shorthand, like in languiage

. . every word in language does not have to take into account every, single deffinition of everything else. RBI’s have value as languege. They habve value as a statistic too but, just becuase they aren’t “perfect” they get labeled as stupid - which, I think, is stupid itself.

YOU go digging around in the bowels of bbref to find situational rbi opportunities and, let us have our language of baseball ok please?

What you are saying doesn’t make sense anyways. If two players play in the same park and, have the same amount of opportunities and, one guy drives in 65 runs and the other drives in 125 - who is better at that? Just because a number has things that effect it - like ALL stats! - doesn’t make it close to uselss. Bad analysis there, in my opinion.

I am looking for a job writing about baseball - collaborations, articles, scouting reports, research, anything baseball related I will try and help you. Samples available on request. - Casey

by casejud on Dec 17, 2025 5:29 PM EST up reply actions  

I do not think

RBIs have any value in evaluating a player. My reason is they are very dependent on RBI oppurtunities which have nothing to do with player skill and they do not correlate very well from year to year.

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 5:39 PM EST up reply actions  

some numbers have far more things that affect them than others.

i’ve never figured out why people want to use less useful stats for analysis instead of more useful ones. and your analogy to “language” probably is accurate. it’s just that things such as RBI and batting average are the “language” equivalents of concepts you’d use with a fifth grader.

by larry on Dec 18, 2025 2:42 PM EST up reply actions  

..
If two players play in the same park and, have the same amount of opportunities and, one guy drives in 65 runs and the other drives in 125 – who is better at that?

Well, if they both get the same opportunities, and one drives in more…isn’t it fairly obvious?

by Vega-0021 on Dec 18, 2025 8:50 PM EST up reply actions  

my bad

flag in error

by smokeymcpots on Dec 17, 2025 6:37 PM EST up reply actions  

NOT HOMERISM???

10th best farm system in MLB? heh heh

by Hairylady on Dec 17, 2025 5:29 PM EST reply actions  

I think people are underrating Latos

a bit. I think he’s a true #1 look at this. 2012 CAIRO projections
Mat Latos 3.34 ERA
notable pitchers with higher projected ERAs than Latos.
Felix Hernandez 3.49
Dan Haren 3.46
David Price 3.40
Ian Kennedy 3.38
Jon Lester 3.51
Gio Gonzalez 3.55
Doug Fister 3.71
Ubaldo Jimenez 3.74
James Shields 3.74

CAIRO is projecting Latos in an extreme pitchers park, but using park factors, Latos’ ERA is 3.49.

I do know that Latos’ splits are almost the same at home and on the road, but you still have to use park factors.

by Bososx13 on Dec 17, 2025 9:13 PM EST reply actions  

I think

this is a good trade for both sides. I think Volquez is getting ignored. PETCO could fuel a rebound and the Padres could swap him at the deadline next season.

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 17, 2025 10:00 PM EST reply actions  

that is quite true

A good half-season out of Volquez and they ship him off for another prospect or two, and this trade could look even better for Byrnes. And I believe, off the top, FIP/xFIP/SIERA gave him a better review for the last 2 seasons (for lack of a better term), and the move to Petco could enhance that.

They simply need him to look good enough so that they can generate value for him. I doubt he’s any sort of key asset in their future, so even the mirage of improvement could be enough to get value in return for him.

by toonsterwu on Dec 17, 2025 10:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Yep Yep Yep

For example maybe the Rangers are looking for a SP next year at the deadline, the two sides meet again, and they settle on a Volquez for Mike Olt, who struggled a bit in the first half of 2012, swap.

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 17, 2025 11:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Street

I believe Street is on the last year of his contract so it it not 3 yrs/24 M. He is scheduled to earn 7.5M for 2012.

by KismetKid on Dec 17, 2025 10:05 PM EST reply actions  

you're right

the last year is a 8.5m option w/ a 500k buyout

by PrincetonCubs on Dec 17, 2025 11:25 PM EST up reply actions  


User Tools

Minor League Ball: Where the Future of Baseball is Discussed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Post your fantasy baseball want ads here (please rec)!
Diesel1_small
Happy Birthday John Sickels!
Rich_tuning_small_small
Rich Wilson's Top 100 Prospects (#26-#50)
Diesel1_small
Who else gets confused by all the new stats?
March2111_084_small
Reminder: Treat other Posters with Respect

Recent FanPosts

Small
Deep League, High-Impact Prospects: Friends, I love this Site and would love the community's advice!
Small
John Sickels Ebook - Customer Service?
Img00006-20101226-1702_small
FakeTeams Fantasy Baseball All Questions Answered Thread
Small
Fantasy ?- who to draft
Nyy27_small
Scout.com's Top 100 List via Frankie Piliere
Sbn_small
Overall Community Prospect #60
Sbn_small
Community Positional Prospect #44 RUNOFF
Sbn_small
Community Pitching Prospect #41
Imagesca3jtcpe_small
Rizzo to Cubbies
Dukes_small
A little late, but a new bargaining agreement draft question

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Baseball Nation Recent Stories

He shouldn't say that about Belgium. (AP Photo/Paul Beaty, File)

ProGS - The Pronunciation Guide For Sabermetricians

OAKLAND, CA - Howie Kendrick #47 of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim watches the flight of his ball hitting his second two-run home run of the game against the Oakland Athletics in the ninth inning at O.co Coliseum.  (Photo by Thearon W. Henderson/Getty Images)

Report: Angels, Howie Kendrick Agree To Extension

NEW YORK, NY:  Jorge Posada #20 of the New York Yankees walks back to the dugout with his head down after he grounded out in the bottom of the eighth inning against the Detroit Tigers during Game Five of the American League Championship Series at Yankee Stadium in the Bronx borough of New York City.  (Photo by Nick Laham/Getty Images)

Jorge Posada Expected To Announce Retirement

More from Baseball Nation >


Managers

March2111_084_small John Sickels

Jeri_avatar_small mssickels

Authors

Small SethSpeaks

Osnation2_small Jordan Tuwiner

Img00006-20101226-1702_small Ray Guilfoyle

Headshot_small dougdirt

Lax-xl_small Marisa Ingemi

Mlbbonusbaby-xl_small Matt Garrioch

Small Marc Hulet

Moderators

Small mrkupe


Site Meter