2023-24 Detroit Tigers Offseason Thread

[casimir]

22 hours ago, chasfh said:

The bigger issue for Manning might be the specter of a missile approaching them from 60 feet and arriving at him in about a third of a second. Yes, I realize every pitcher faces the same possibility, but Manning has actually been hit twice, and a guy like that could reasonably develop the yips when it comes to delivering the pitch.

The yips are a reasonable concern here, I agree.  I was half hearted about the steel toe cleats suggestion.  That might physically protect one area, but it’s much more than a foot that’s in play.

I was at a Pirates game when Jameson Taillon took a line drive off of the head that landed in LF.   Naturally he was down on the ground for a bit.  Somehow he stayed in the game.

I’m sure most of us remember Doug Fister taking one off of the head and staying the World Series game, too.

But then these are only the direct hits.  Their moxie is probably galvanized by all of the close calls that we don’t necessarily remember.

Hopefully he’s mentally ready to to return to the mound.

[SoCalTiger]

Yes I don’t think we should expect much from Mize next year. First year back from two surgeries and two years from any innings pitched. It will be a challenge to get him a consistent spot when the upside is what 100 innings?

[gehringer_2]

15 minutes ago, casimir said:

I was half hearted about the steel toe cleats suggestion.

IIRC the second one hit him in the side of the foot didn't it? Whatever - but on the spectrum of things that that might give a guy the yips hopefully getting hit in the foot is fairly far down the list since it's not particularly 'scary' when it happens like getting bonked in the head, even if it did produce a longer term injury...

[KL2]

29 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

Yes I don’t think we should expect much from Mize next year. First year back from two surgeries and two years from any innings pitched. It will be a challenge to get him a consistent spot when the upside is what 100 innings?

OK he's not an invalid.

He was pretty good before his injury no reason to think he forgot everything from then and hasn't been rehabbing strength in the time since. I get he's not gonna come out the gates, but too many are making it like we should just take him to the glue factory.

[casimir]

2 minutes ago, KL2 said:

OK he's not an invalid.

He was pretty good before his injury no reason to think he forgot everything from then and hasn't been rehabbing strength in the time since. I get he's not gonna come out the gates, but too many are making it like we should just take him to the glue factory.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting the glue factory.  But what is a reasonable expectation for him in 2024?  He’s pitched 150 innings once.  A max of 109 in the minors one season and 114 for Auburn.  Yes, his second highest workload during a season was in college (followed by 13 in the minors that year).

I agree with you, I would think he and the Tigers have a plan and are implementing it to get have him as prepared as possible to be ready for 2024.  But what is a reasonable expectation for that best case workload?

[gehringer_2]

7 minutes ago, KL2 said:

OK he's not an invalid.

He was pretty good before his injury no reason to think he forgot everything from then and hasn't been rehabbing strength in the time since. I get he's not gonna come out the gates, but too many are making it like we should just take him to the glue factory.

He probably won't work much more than 100 innings or so, but 20-25 5 inning starts is still potentially a big contribution. The big question to me is his stuff. Before the injury his FB needed to improve and the happy talk is saying that with the the back issue fixed the FB is improved. If that's true, maybe we'll see more of what made him a 1/1.

[chasfh]

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

 🙋‍♂️ Only risk in that he's more expensive than the typical lower cost tiger rehab signing, even for the one year - I suppose whether possibly wasting 14M for a year is risk or not is of course in the eye of the beholder.... It's not a sub replacement Cabrera for 5 years at $40M risk, but it is 65% more on the table than in the Lorenzen signing, which was more along the line of where I thought they would end up. Of course, inflation has affected pitching.....

2 hours ago, casimir said:

Depends on the opportunity cost of that $14M.

I like the move to see what Fetter/Nieves/Lund can do and as insurance for Mize to get back into MLB shape.

I might stipulate that $14 million is not all that significant a hit to a team’s payroll anymore in terms of opportunity cost, especially given the hike up in contracts this year. I mean, 3/26 for Joe Jimenez? Now that’s a risk, and less because of the $26 million.

The Tigers are going to have a payroll in the bottom third of baseball next season, and that’s even with Flaherty on board, so I see it as actually being a low-risk signing. His contract is clearly not hamstringing us from spending more, and if he doesn’t work out, we don’t have to worry about him having any impact on the 2025 payroll.

[Tiger337]

I don't care how much the Tigers spend on a one-year deal unless it prevents them from signing someone better which is very unlikely.  I trust them not go over budget before signing someone more expensive that they really want.

[gehringer_2]

13 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I don't care how much the Tigers spend on a one-year deal unless it prevents them from signing someone better which is very unlikely.  I trust them not go over budget before signing someone more expensive that they really want.

Temptation to make a bad move probably isn't that high yet. It will probably get worse as the team gets better and the allure of deal that could get them 'over the top' grows stronger. That's when we find out if ownership is in it to be good over the long haul or will cash out for one big season.

Edited December 17, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Hart]

Heard a Tiger fan mention they liked the idea of Justin Turner for the Tigers and I like that idea too if he can play third base everyday.  Somehow managed a career high in plate appearances last year and a pretty clear upgrade over Vierling.  

[Edman85]

32 minutes ago, Hart said:

Heard a Tiger fan mention they liked the idea of Justin Turner for the Tigers and I like that idea too if he can play third base everyday.  Somehow managed a career high in plate appearances last year and a pretty clear upgrade over Vierling.  

 

Granted, I was making some chili paste a couple hours ago and some splattered into my eye, so NOTHING is clear at the moment. However, I'm not sure this is as clear as you state. His defense has tailed off to the point where he can't handle the position. The defensive grades on Fangraphs stand out like a sore thumb.

So with Turner, you are likely looking at a DH. He would be an upgrade on Miguel Cabrera, but with a crowded outfield, you are likely sitting one of Canha/Greene/Carpenter to get Turner in the lineup, and I'm not sure that is much of an upgrade, if at all, especially once you factor in the steep decline from age 38 to 39. (For what it is worth, the Prospectus defensive metrics had Turner above average last year. Savant is in line with the Fangraphs numbers).

[casimir]

6 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

He probably won't work much more than 100 innings or so, but 20-25 5 inning starts is still potentially a big contribution. The big question to me is his stuff. Before the injury his FB needed to improve and the happy talk is saying that with the the back issue fixed the FB is improved. If that's true, maybe we'll see more of what made him a 1/1.

That usage is kind of what I am thinking.  Maybe a few more starts, maybe the earlier starts might be more 2 lineup trips or a 70ish pitch count rather than 5 innings, but gradually increase over the season if the start is good enough.

So, I guess the flip side is, for those that think he this might be a bit soft for him, what kind of usage should be expected?  What should the Tigers get out of him this season in terms of starts and innings?

[SoCalTiger]

6 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

He probably won't work much more than 100 innings or so, but 20-25 5 inning starts is still potentially a big contribution. The big question to me is his stuff. Before the injury his FB needed to improve and the happy talk is saying that with the the back issue fixed the FB is improved. If that's true, maybe we'll see more of what made him a 1/1.

That sounds like a good plan for Mize. However I am curious  how the other 5 staters(Skubal-Flahtery-Maeda-Manning-Olen) fit in ? Are we thinking one in the minors, piggy back or six man rotation and with the latter two is a seven man bullpen sufficient ?

[Tenacious D]

11 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

That sounds like a good plan for Mize. However I am curious  how the other 5 staters(Skubal-Flahtery-Maeda-Manning-Olen) fit in ? Are we thinking one in the minors, piggy back or six man rotation and with the latter two is a seven man bullpen sufficient ?

hard to put Olsen in Toledo after the season he had for us, but he would appear to be the odd man out.  I suspect they would want him stretched out there vs. pitching in long relief with the big club.

Nice problem to have if we have six healthy and deserving starting pitchers coming out of Spring Training.

[Tiger337]

I think Olson is their second best pitcher, so I would guess he's safe unless he looks terrible in Spring training.  Anyway, at the end of last year Hinch or Harris said something about not having a traditional five man staff, but rather having a couple of swing men.  So, I wouldn't be at all surprised for them to go with six starters.  It would still be pitchers pitching with four days rest for the most part, but there might be a lot of split starts.   

The most surprising thing might be all six being healthy on opening day!  So, I am happy to see some depth.  

 

Edited December 18, 2023 by Tiger337

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

I think Olson is their second best pitcher, so I would guess he's safe unless he looks terrible in Spring training.  Anyway, at the end of last year Hinch or Harris said something about not having a traditional five man staff, but rather having a couple of swing men.  So, I wouldn't be at all surprised for them to go with six starters.  It would still be pitchers pitching with four days rest for the most part, but there might be a lot of split starts.   

The most surprising thing might be all six being healthy on opening day!  So, I am happy to see some depth.  

 

Well, it's about time some clever manager figures out a way to reverse the trend of more and more innings being shifted from starting staffs to bullpens. If you can distribute 150+ IP to a 6th starter over a season that probably replaces 3 relievers- allows you to lengthen your hitting  bench etc. Only a matter of time until teams figure out ways to do it.

Edited December 18, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Tenacious D]

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Well, it's about time some clever manager figures out a way to reverse the trend of more and more innings being shifted from starting staffs to bullpens. If you can distribute 150+ IP to a 6th starter over a season that probably replaces 3 relievers- allows you to lengthen your hitting  bench etc. Only a matter of time until teams figure out ways to do it.

if you add a 6th starting pitcher to the rotation, how are you alleviating bullpen usage?  Wouldn't it just result in fewer total innings per starter over the course of a season?  Assuming that most starters only go 5-6 innings per start, aren't you still requiring the same amount of innings for the relievers?

[gehringer_2]

35 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

if you add a 6th starting pitcher to the rotation, how are you alleviating bullpen usage?  Wouldn't it just result in fewer total innings per starter over the course of a season?  Assuming that most starters only go 5-6 innings per start, aren't you still requiring the same amount of innings for the relievers?

Correct -  you can't just go to a six man rotation, that just cuts all your starter innings even more. You have to find a way to block more longer pitching appearances - more in the range of 4 IP average, and then have a starter take those spots instead of 2-4 relievers. For the Tiger the obvious 1st move would be to coordinate use of  Mize and Manning on the same game so they average 4 IP each - though it wouldn't have to be evenly split starts. They might split 6/2 on day and 2/6 another. If each made 30 appearances that averaged 4 IP, they'd be a nearly the perfect work load and you would have saved the BP over 100 IP.

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Temptation to make a bad move probably isn't that high yet. It will probably get worse as the team gets better and the allure of deal that could get them 'over the top' grows stronger. That's when we find out if ownership is in it to be good over the long haul or will cash out for one big season.

Given how deliberate Harris is showing himself to be, I am having trouble seeing him throw everything away and making a crazy signing, like 7/200 would be for a Snell or a Bellinger. And I don’t believe Baby Doc is as given to that kind of New York minute that Papa Doc was. If there’s a concern to be had along these lines, I’d think it would be more that the caution would prevent them from making the right big money move for the right guy before someone else snaps him up.

[chasfh]

10 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Well, it's about time some clever manager figures out a way to reverse the trend of more and more innings being shifted from starting staffs to bullpens. If you can distribute 150+ IP to a 6th starter over a season that probably replaces 3 relievers- allows you to lengthen your hitting  bench etc. Only a matter of time until teams figure out ways to do it.

The trick is getting six pitchers good enough to put into a regular rotation. I have never been a big fan of this idea because you end up taking starts from your best starters and scheduling them for your sixth best guy maybe 25-ish times a year. That’s not an effective use of resources, as far as I can tell. I would rather have a five-man schedule and cobble together the fifth spot between your number 5/6 guys.

If a team does have six guys who are good and healthy enough for a regular turn—a super rare instance, I would think—then they should probably move one of those 5/6 guys to fill another position of clear need, if they have one.

[chasfh]

9 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Correct -  you can't just go to a six man rotation, that just cuts all your starter innings even more. You have to find a way to block more longer pitching appearances - more in the range of 4 IP average, and then have a starter take those spots instead of 2-4 relievers. For the Tiger the obvious 1st move would be to coordinate use of  Mize and Manning on the same game so they average 4 IP each - though it wouldn't have to be evenly split starts. They might split 6/2 on day and 2/6 another. If each made 30 appearances that averaged 4 IP, they'd be a nearly the perfect work load and you would have saved the BP over 100 IP.

I’ve been thinking more lately that there must be a market inefficiency in terms of multi-inning relievers, guys who can work out of the front of the bullpen for 2-3 innings at a time and not necessarily be a contender for a starting role. So, if a pitcher has to come out in the third or fourth inning, a team could slot in a guy (or even two) to get them to the end of the game and save the back of the pen, versus having to cycle six one-inning guys, including their closer and #1 setup, to get them to the end of the game because that’s all they have available.

[RatkoVarda]

speaking of the Athletic, good but very long article about how the Giants never were able to pull the trigger on a big transaction over the last few years and now they are floundering to even keep the LAD at least in sight.

NL West is a great microcosm of MLB. Colorado - poorly run team with no clue and no chance; SFG - trying to outsmart everyone while finishing 5, 4, 3, 3, 1, 3 and 4 in the division; SD - spending $ just to spend it with absolutely no plan; AZ - lots of young talent and now spending FA $ to keep it going; LAD - incredibly well run franchise loaded with almost unlimited resources (except the cheat code for post season success)

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I’ve been thinking more lately that there must be a market inefficiency in terms of multi-inning relievers, guys who can work out of the front of the bullpen for 2-3 innings at a time and not necessarily be a contender for a starting role. So, if a pitcher has to come out in the third or fourth inning, a team could slot in a guy (or even two) to get them to the end of the game and save the back of the pen, versus having to cycle six one-inning guys, including their closer and #1 setup, to get them to the end of the game because that’s all they have available.

I think part of the reluctance is that for all the science being applied, teams still don't know enough about recovery cycles to know what is safe to do, probably because no-one wants to take the risk and maybe do it wrong, which is probably the only way the data ever eventually emerges. They know the five day cycle, they think they know that if they keep a guy to 20 pitches or so he can go 2 days out of 3 or maybe the occasional 3 out of 4 (though I have my doubt about this given that reliever wastage rates seem to be worse than starters!). But they just don't have any confidence to say "we can bring a guy back after 3 days if he throws 50" or whatever the case may be - or even how he should train on the differing cycles.

[Edman85]

I see BP put out some advanced bare bones Pecota today. I won't be able to dive in until this evening, but there are some Tigers I am curious about.

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Given how deliberate Harris is showing himself to be, I am having trouble seeing him throw everything away and making a crazy signing, like 7/200 would be for a Snell or a Bellinger. And I don’t believe Baby Doc is as given to that kind of New York minute that Papa Doc was. If there’s a concern to be had along these lines, I’d think it would be more that the caution would prevent them from making the right big money move for the right guy before someone else snaps him up.

That is how I see it.  I trust him not to do anything stupid, but I get the feeling he might be too cautious to pull the trigger at the right time.  I also don't know what kind of budget he'll have.  I don't think they'll be Tampa Bay, but are they going to be the Braves or Brewers?  

 

 

Edited December 18, 2023 by Tiger337