Jump to content





Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
 


Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:





BWA

Member Since 18 Dec 2013
Offline Last Active Apr 03 2014 03:47 PM
-----

Topics I've Started

Samardzija "Best Stuff"

03 April 2014 - 02:48 PM

I was arguing with my friends (stupid sox fans) that Samardzija might have top 10 "stuff" in the MLB but that he just doesn't use it well. I remember a while back there was a players poll or something with Samardzija listed in it as a top 10 pitch, but I can't find it. Anyone have any idea what I'm talking about haha? Just want something to use as proof. 

 

-BWA


Javier Baez. What round?

29 March 2014 - 06:17 PM

I'm in an NL only league, and I'm honestly considering taking him in the 11th round. We can keep up to 10 players, so that would be about the 20th pick in the draft after keepers. He has so much upside. Problem is, he could be up anytime between June and September. 

 

Any thoughts?

 

 


Positional Value - A huge pet peeve of mine

18 December 2013 - 07:44 PM

Hey Everyone,

 

This is my first post here in the message board. Hopefully it brings on a good conversation.

 

One thing I've seen a lot of in the comments section here at BN is discussion about position value. For example, Javier Baez is more valuable as a shortstop than as a 2nd or 3rd baseman, or Brett's Favorite, Junior Lake is more valuable as a center fielder than a left fielder (offensively).

 

Now I fully understand that players like Baez and Castro, who are expected to hit above average at a premium position that has weak offense league wide, would have increased TRADE value. Other teams value them highly because of that unique skill set. However, what irks me is when it is discussed about their value to the Cubs changing based on which position they play. Assuming Baez and Castro both hit to their potential, the only change in value they have to the Cubs is how good of defense one or the other can play at 2nd base rather than shortstop. Either way, both bats are in the lineup.

 

To further stress my point I will go back to a hypothetical Junior lake example. Say the Cubs had signed Ellsbury and thus lake was moved to left field. So lake's bat doesn't play as well in left field as it does in center, so the argument seems to be that he is less valuable now. In my mind, lake was going to be in the lineup regardless and since he probably plays a better left field than center, his value to the cubs actually increases.

 

Last example would be Kris Bryant moving to the outfield. Lets say Olt sticks at third and Bryant is called up and moved to a corner outfield spot. Sure his TRADE value would decrease if he sticks in the outfield so long that teams view him only as an outfielder, but his value to the Cubs would remain the same assuming his outfield defense is comparable to his 3rd base defense. And ultimately the Cubs would be better because they like Olt at 3rd and Bryant can replace a lesser performing outfielder.

 

TL;DR: In my opinion, positional value is only true as TRADE value because other teams may desire to fill a hole at a weak position, but positional value has no value to the team the player is currently on, unless they intend to trade said player.

 

There's my rant. Any thoughts?


Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).