2021-22 Tigers Hot Stove League

[1984Echoes]

16 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

... If he's doing well by the ASB next year I'd be ready to make the  commitment.

Nope.

[1984Echoes]

16 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

... I'd be comfortable giving him something like 4/60 or 5/75...

 

16 hours ago, chasfh said:

All depends on bad we want to lock him up through age 32... I don’t know how well he’s gonna age, given how immobile he is right how at 27. I might give him three years with team options. 

 

No, no, NO!!!!!!

 

 

 

[Tiger337]

I like Candelario for the next couple of years, but he doesn't seem like a player that needs to be signed long term.  He is adequate both offensively and defensively, but doesn't hit quite well enough to offset further slippage in defense which may happen soon.  

[gehringer_2]

56 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I like Candelario for the next couple of years, but he doesn't seem like a player that needs to be signed long term.  He is adequate both offensively and defensively, but doesn't hit quite well enough to offset further slippage in defense which may happen soon.  

Yeah - Candy looks kind of frumpy physically. OTOH - Beltre was a good example of a guy where you'd be misled if you judged his defensive longevity based on the fact that he never looked cut.

Edited October 12, 2021 by gehringer_2

[sabretooth]

Candy was a crummy player until 2020 when he hit 26 years of age, and he has hit well for most of his last 830 PAs, except for the 166 PAs in May and June this year when he hit as poorly as he had for the 1000+ PAs in 2018 and 2019 at ages 24 and 25.

The point is that he is probably a crummy hitter who is having a nice peak period at the age where peaks happen (26/27).

His defense is OK.

I'm OK with him for now, but extending him would be extremely foolish.

[Archie]

I would sign Candy for the arbitration amount for one year.  This year he can prove some consistency in his performance to give him more value.

[Dan Gilmore]

I think he was a crummy hitter when he had a long term wrist injury. Since he has left that behind he hasn’t been crummy. 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, sabretooth said:

Candy was a crummy player until 2020 when he hit 26 years of age, and he has hit well for most of his last 830 PAs, except for the 166 PAs in May and June this year when he hit as poorly as he had for the 1000+ PAs in 2018 and 2019 at ages 24 and 25.

The point is that he is probably a crummy hitter who is having a nice peak period at the age where peaks happen (26/27).

His defense is OK.

I'm OK with him for now, but extending him would be extremely foolish.

I generally agree with the career arc theory saying that guys that got good late will get bad early, but in Candelario's case, IIRC correctly there were some recurring issues with his wrist that may have been impacting his performance. He actually looked like a pretty promising hitter in his age 23 year and then kind of regressed. Was that injury or not? I'm not arguing it either way, the team has the records to better make that determination but I would put it out there as a factor to add to the decision matrix. Some guys hit their stride late for unique reasons other than the career arc paradigm - JD for instance.

[RandyMarsh]

Yes when Candy first got here he hit well and looked like a promising young player. In fact that offseason notorious Tigers hater Keith Law had him on his list for best players in the MLB under the age of 25 so he isn't entirely a late bloomer. He just had a couple years of bad baseball after his great start. 

[1984Echoes]

With Candy though...

I just don't see a reason to "jump the gun".

The Tigers are not compelled to do so. They are not "under the gun". They can wait until July 2023 and then, just like Schoop, if they see a need to keep a veteran at 3B for another couple years, offer an extension. I don't believe he's going to have any "over the top" market demand. He's a good player. Not more than that.

And if he gets usurped by Workman or Keith or Paredes or a big FA signing or big trade... then sayonara.

We've got him for the next two years.

Wait.

[RandyMarsh]

Yeah after thinking about it I agree its best to just wait atleast another season cause we're not gonna save much by extending him now vs. then. Certainly not enough to risk him turning into a pumpkin or suffering a serious injury. 

[chasfh]

3 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

 

 

No, no, NO!!!!!!

 

 

 

Why not, why not, WHY NOT!!!!!!

We're going to have Jeimer for two years, his age 28 and 29 season, and given that our horizon to return to serious contention is probably three years, I don't think it would be a terrible idea to lock him up for that third year versus him leaving because we won't accede to his demands for multiple years at age thirty, with our having to start all over at 3B. Because if he's above average in 2022 and 2023, he's not going to come back on a mere one-year contract as a free agent. At that point, the deal to keep him would have to be years and years.

I wouldn't want to guarantee anything to Jeimer beyond that right now, but I think a three-year deal with discretionary team options to take him through age 31 or 32 wouldn't be a terrible risk, and at more favorable money than if he were to have any All-Star seasons in the next two years. Despite that we've basically drafted or traded for just about every position player as a third baseman in the past few years, it's not as though we have anyone projected to be as good as he is banging on the door to take his job away anytime soon.

All this said, I don't have strong feelings about it. I'd also be fine with letting him play his final two arb years and then taking our chances on the system or the market. But if the Tigers' preference is to boot Jeimer after two years no matter what, then not extending him is probably the right non-move.

[sabretooth]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

I generally agree with the career arc theory saying that guys that got good late will get bad early, but in Candelario's case, IIRC correctly there were some recurring issues with his wrist that may have been impacting his performance. He actually looked like a pretty promising hitter in his age 23 year and then kind of regressed. Was that injury or not? I'm not arguing it either way, the team has the records to better make that determination but I would put it out there as a factor to add to the decision matrix. Some guys hit their stride late for unique reasons other than the career arc paradigm - JD for instance.

His peripherals prior to 2020 were always a problem, even with the small sample size of 2017 -- low LD and low HR/FB -- in 2020 and 2021 he finally managed to have normal LD and HR/FB %s, which converted him from a huge out-maker.

The other and more intriguing thing is the elevated number of doubles in 2020 and 2021....since he doesn't have a high LD, Launch angle, exit velo, or barrel %, or even home/road splits, it seems like the high doubles rate in 2020-21 just sort of "popped in there" and is a special function of his hitting style and peak performance.

Since he doesn't rely on any one major hitting factor, *maybe* that makes his current success more sustainable over the long run?  Or maybe he will just fade like most guys when he hits 30-32 years of age?  I really don't have a good sense at this point.

[1984Echoes]

Well...

I listed all of my reasons above for the Why Not part...

[RatkoVarda]

hmm

 

[SoCalTiger]

Apart from very early deals like Acuna and Albies in Atlanta does extending any player really make sense ? Is there really a savings from free agency prices after discounting for the risk of poor performance/decline ? I also question the reduced motivation effect. If I was a GM I would value flexibility very keenly. There's always a pool of players to choose from.

[casimir]

2 hours ago, RatkoVarda said:

hmm

 

Dear Santa,

All I want for Christmas is a MLB QO.  Enjoy your cookies, tell the Mrs I said hello, and please clean up after Prancer this time.

Thanks,

Casimir

Edited October 12, 2021 by casimir

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, SoCalTiger said:

Apart from very early deals like Acuna and Albies in Atlanta does extending any player really make sense ? Is there really a savings from free agency prices after discounting for the risk of poor performance/decline ? I also question the reduced motivation effect. If I was a GM I would value flexibility very keenly. There's always a pool of players to choose from.

I think a three-year deal with two team options would be an acceptable risk, and a motivating factor for Jeimer. The alternatives to plan for, as I see them, are to get two more good years out of Jeimer and let him walk, or get two more good years out of him and pay him 3-4 more years to keep him around. Planning as of today, I don’t love either of those alternatives, necessarily.

One might counter that the two years we get out of Jeimer may not be good at all, to which I might reply, why plan on keeping a not-good 3B around for two years, then? After all, we just got a 3.6-win season out of him following a shortened season that projected out to 5 wins. That should allow us to project nine or wins for the next three seasons, shouldn’t it? If that’s the case, it might be worth locking him down for the year we plan on contending, then having him earn the following two years through performance. After all, we just committed to two more years to 30- and 31-year-old Jonathan Schoop, who just had his first two-win season in three years. Why would committing three years to a younger, better player be nuts?

Edited October 13, 2021 by chasfh

[SoCalTiger]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I think a three-year deal with two team options would be an acceptable risk, and a motivating factor for Jeimer. The alternatives to plan for, as I see it, are to get two more good years out of Jeimer and let him walk, or get two more good years out of him and pay him 3-4 more years to keep him around. Planning as of today, I don’t love either of those alternatives, necessarily.

One might reply that the two years we get out of Jeimer may not be good at all, to which I might reply, why plan on keeping a not-good 3B around for two years, then? After all, we just got a 3.6-win season out of him following a shortened season that projected out to 5 wins. That should allow us to project nine or wins for the next three seasons, shouldn’t it? If that’s the case, it might be worth locking him down for the year we plan on contending, then having him earn the following two years through performance. After all, we just committed to two more years of 30- and 31-year-old Schoop, who just had his first two-win season in three years. Why would committing three years to a younger, better player be nuts?

I was not referring to Candy in particular though your proposal makes sense to me. I was just wondering on general terms regarding the usefulness to a team extending players. It seems the closer the player gets to free agency the harder it is to make a deal since the player might already want "free agent" money so maybe its best to just save the money to use it in free agency for your player or a new one. Plus if he declines or gets hurt  the team is not stuck. It"seems" to me salary flexibility is very important.  But I really don't know.

[chasfh]

9 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I like Candelario for the next couple of years, but he doesn't seem like a player that needs to be signed long term.  He is adequate both offensively and defensively, but doesn't hit quite well enough to offset further slippage in defense which may happen soon.  

How much better do you require a third baseman with a 125 OPS+ over his last 830 plate appearances to hit? Do you really think Jeimer’s defense is so bad that his level of offense can’t cover for it?

[Tiger337]

20 minutes ago, chasfh said:

How much better do you require a third baseman with a 125 OPS+ over his last 830 plate appearances to hit? Do you really think Jeimer’s defense is so bad that his level of offense can’t cover for it?

We'll see in two years.  I don't have a problem with Candelario.  I just don't think signing him long term is a priority.  

[Edman85]

All this talk of extensions, but assuming the competitive balance tax stays as is, the Tigers would be wise to get Tork and Greene signed to extensions that cover their arb years and maybe a year or two of free agency. Those contracts tend to be progressive, meaning that by year 5 or 6 they are likely going to be in the 15-25 million range if things go well, but if they are part of an extension, the AAV includes the years making the minimum. So while they would be making that 15-25, they would only count like 6 against the tax.

[gehringer_2]

12 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

Those contracts tend to be progressive, meaning that by year 5 or 6 they are likely going to be in the 15-25 million range if things go well, but if they are part of an extension, the AAV includes the years making the minimum. So while they would be making that 15-25, they would only count like 6 against the tax.

that's sort of bizarre.

[sabretooth]

12 hours ago, Edman85 said:

All this talk of extensions, but assuming the competitive balance tax stays as is, the Tigers would be wise to get Tork and Greene signed to extensions that cover their arb years and maybe a year or two of free agency. Those contracts tend to be progressive, meaning that by year 5 or 6 they are likely going to be in the 15-25 million range if things go well, but if they are part of an extension, the AAV includes the years making the minimum. So while they would be making that 15-25, they would only count like 6 against the tax.

Huh...interesting point.

[Archie]

Some people already have Greene and Tork penciled in as MLB stars but they haven't even played in the bigs yet.  All of us, including myself hope they are the answer to some of the Tiger problems but its possible one or both will not be successful major league players.  Tigers would be smart to hold off on big contracts until they can see what they can do in Detroit.