2012-13 Offseason Discussion

[Shelton]

All valid points, but for myself I never said that Porcello is surplus and should be traded. I realize the value of having a durable/steady-if-below-average guy like Porcello as the #5 and Smyly/etc. as the #6 group....but I think it's more important for this team to find a SS with definitive plus defense, and work out the #6 SP issues through other means (minor-league acquistions, etc.).

Well, one of the guys IS surplus. Whether you want to keep the surplus as insurance or not is the question. Your post seems to indicate you think we should spend the surplus on a defensive shortstop.

I don't disagree with that necessarily.

The idea out there that porcello must be traded before spring, as many are saying, just doesn't make sense to me. It's going to be hard to find an upgrade that matches the list value by going from porcello/smyly to below, which seems likely to happen at some point.

Minor league acquisitions aren't going to solve the below problem. We'd just end up with more belows.

[Motor City Sonics]

Hardy is the #1 guy I wanted the Tigers to get this offseason.

[Nastradamus]

But you have to evaluate Porcello against the available alternative as well (Smyly). Smyly has blister issues, but otherwise is a very suitable #5....to the extent that Smyly avoids blisters and stays on the mound, he's easiliy Porcello's equal or better in terms of run prevention. So the fact that Hardy is a clear upgrade on Peralta is pure gravy.

That literally has nothign to do with it.

[Nastradamus]

This. Defensive upgrade>>>>Porcello

Whether you hate Porcello or not, ignoring the fact that he has value to the team, whether in trade or as an insurance starter, makes no sense whatsoever. You might not get one single win out of a Hardy/Peralta trade. Sounds great in name though!

[EchO]

That literally has nothign to do with it.

What do you mean? In terms of relative worth, Hardy is equal to Porcello, both are right around 3 WAR players. Porcello isn't worth enough to net us Hardy and 2 other substantial pieces. Sabre seemed to be saying that since Porcello and Smyly are projected to be about equal in terms of production, trading Porcello for Hardy would be a net gain because Smyly is equal to, or greater than, Porcello. I would be interested in seeing what happens to Peralta if there was a Hardy trade, that could be where other pieces come into play.

Smyly + Hardy > Peralta + Porcello + Smyly (#6 insurance starter)

[Nastradamus]

Smyly + Hardy > Peralta + Porcello + Smyly (#6 insurance starter)

This isn't how he was evaluating it though. You don't throw away a valuable piece just because you have an alternative.

[mmwatkin]

Smyly + Hardy > Peralta + Porcello + Smyly (#6 insurance starter)

Peralta + Porcello + Smyly > Hardy + Smyly + Below/Crosby

[sabretooth]

Whether you hate Porcello or not, ignoring the fact that he has value to the team, whether in trade or as an insurance starter, makes no sense whatsoever. You might not get one single win out of a Hardy/Peralta trade. Sounds great in name though!

I didn't ignore Porcello's value to the team, I placed it in the context of the available alternatives.

Shelton's position that we have to worry about who we move into the #6 slot to replace Smyly is a good point and one that I explored too.

[sabretooth]

This isn't how he was evaluating it though. You don't throw away a valuable piece just because you have an alternative.

Wrong....I never advocated "throwing him away". Echo got the point of my post, you missed it.

[Nastradamus]

Well then you worded it poorly. The way it reads, you'd be ok giving up Porcello, who has more value than the difference between Peralta and Hardy, because we have a viable replacement on the roster.

[EchO]

Peralta + Porcello + Smyly > Hardy + Smyly + Below/Crosby

Well, I think Peralta would also be dealt...what if it were something more akin to.

Hardy, Smyly, Below/Crosby (in very limited role), bullpen help maybe a James Russell type or Peralta, Porcello, Smyly (in a very limited role)?

[Keepleyland2]

Just sitting on a guy who might throw 100 innings cause something could, maybe, one day possibly happen seems silly. Sure you would like depth. But, I'll take 25 strong guys over 24 strong and two meh.

It's the equivalent of not giving up Coke for a guy who is going to play 150 games.

(this should all predicated by saying I don't want Hardy. never liked him. But I don't understand the people saying "You have to hold on to him! something might happen!")

[T&P_Fan]

Whether you hate Porcello or not, ignoring the fact that he has value to the team, whether in trade or as an insurance starter, makes no sense whatsoever. You might not get one single win out of a Hardy/Peralta trade. Sounds great in name though!

I've always said Porcellos greatest value to the Tigers is in a trade. He is not the guy we need to go out there every 5th day. Smyly is the guy. I would rather take the unknown potential of Smyly then let Porcello get shelled every other start and get gassed at 75 pitches.

And if someone gets hurt? Big deal, the return that Porcello could net would be worth more than whomever comes up and starts if a pitcher gets injured. Plus, how tight do we envision the division this year? The 5th starter, regardless of who it is, really will have a minimal impact, so maximize the value that Porcello can bring and get on with the season. Come the playoffs we won't have a 5th starter anyway.

[Nastradamus]

If the return is more value than that, then you have no argument from me.

[Shelton]

Just sitting on a guy who might throw 100 innings cause something could, maybe, one day possibly happen seems silly. Sure you would like depth. But, I'll take 25 strong guys over 24 strong and two meh.

It's the equivalent of not giving up Coke for a guy who is going to play 150 games.

(this should all predicated by saying I don't want Hardy. never liked him. But I don't understand the people saying "You have to hold on to him! something might happen!")

Wilk, turner, Crosby, and below combined to make 10 starts last year, and it would have been more if not for trading away a top prospect for rotation help.

It not just keeping a guy because there is some outside chance that he might be needed.

He will be needed.

[Nastradamus]

I'll add to the above Shelton post that there is a 50% chance an MLB SP lands on the DL in a given year.

[Gehringer_2]

I'll add to the above Shelton post that there is a 50% chance an MLB SP lands on the DL in a given year.

and the Tigs are due. They have had enough extraordinary pitching health luck that the baseball gods have to sorely tested.

[ewsieg]

and the Tigs are due. They have had enough extraordinary pitching health luck that the baseball gods have to sorely tested.

Not a fan of the 'they are due' line though, but we definitely have had a nice streak. Every team has the same risk going into the season. Actually, that's not true, some teams have injury prone pitchers which means they are even more likely to deal with this. Regardless, we have Below and Crosby as alternatives. Not saying they are world beaters, but they match up with 95% of the other teams backup options.

Still, I think i'll be dissapointed if Porcello only nets Hardy. I would almost prefer to see Peralta traded for that platoon outfielder they are looking for and letting Worth play at SS. Leaving Porcello with us for insurance or as even more premium trade bait come July.

[alwaysthrowheat]

Peralta would probably be 20 runs better than Cabrera at third base.

You think Peralta would be +12 runs? I don't.

[alwaysthrowheat]

I'm basing my opinion on lee's series of articles estimating defensive runs from rzr and ooz.

Peralta was basically average at ss, and was pretty good on balls in the zone. Cabrera was at -18.

I'm estimating that peralta would equally average if he moved to third and Cabrera would remain the same. If Cabrera improves, that changes things, but that wasn't really the point I was responding to.

Cabrera was -10 UZR, -8 +/-, and -4 DRS.

[A.J.K.]

The idea out there that porcello must be traded before spring, as many are saying, just doesn't make sense to me.

That's because it's ridiculous on several levels.

[Shelton]

Cabrera was -10 UZR, -8 +/-, and -4 DRS.

I think lee had him at -18

[Shelton]

But, yes, if Cabrera is a couple runs below average, then peralta would be adequate just like Cabrera.

[Nastradamus]

Not a fan of the 'they are due' line though, but we definitely have had a nice streak. Every team has the same risk going into the season. Actually, that's not true, some teams have injury prone pitchers which means they are even more likely to deal with this. Regardless, we have Below and Crosby as alternatives. Not saying they are world beaters, but they match up with 95% of the other teams backup options.

Still, I think i'll be dissapointed if Porcello only nets Hardy. I would almost prefer to see Peralta traded for that platoon outfielder they are looking for and letting Worth play at SS. Leaving Porcello with us for insurance or as even more premium trade bait come July.

These guys looked terrible when given a chance last year.

[T&P_Fan]

These guys looked terrible when given a chance last year.

I think people need to concede that options 6, 7 or even 8 aren't going to be good. The gap between the first 4 and the rest is huge. The gap between Porcello, Smyly, Below, Crosby etc is negligible. That's why trading Porcello is the only thing that makes sense. He can add defense or a platoon partner while not really taking anything away from the pitching. A career 1.41 WHIP isn't that hard to replace.

[Yoda]

I think people need to concede that options 6, 7 or even 8 aren't going to be good. The gap between the first 4 and the rest is huge. The gap between Porcello, Smyly, Below, Crosby etc is negligible. That's why trading Porcello is the only thing that makes sense. He can add defense or a platoon partner while not really taking anything away from the pitching. A career 1.41 WHIP isn't that hard to replace.

Negligible???

A career 1.41 WHIP who can give you 180 innings is not that easy to replace. It just isn't, unfortunately.

[T&P_Fan]

Negligible???

A career 1.41 WHIP who can give you 180 innings is not that easy to replace. It just isn't, unfortunately.

Sure it is. Below has pitched 75 ML innings with a 1.27 WHIP, and he isn't very good. You don't think you could piece together 3 guys or so for 180 innings at 1.5 WHIP (the WHIP porcello had last year)? I sure do.

And that's not figuring in what Smyly can do. He pitched 100 innings last year at a 1.268 WHIP.

I understand that WHIP isn't the end all be all, but I think when making back end comparisons it's a fair measure. Porcello is extremely expendable.

[ballmich]

Wilk, turner, Crosby, and below combined to make 10 starts last year, and it would have been more if not for trading away a top prospect for rotation help.

It not just keeping a guy because there is some outside chance that he might be needed.

He will be needed.

I also think you can add that the Tigers were very lucky to only have needed 10 starts from Wilk, Turner, Crosby, & Below. A lot of teams struggle to get 30 starts from three pitchers. And easily we could be searching for 20-40 starts from that 6-10 group, in any given season. Look at 2012 Baltimore. They went 12 deep in the rotation and had to come up with 56 starts outside of the top 5 SP's. That is pretty unusual, particularly from a competitive ball club. But needing to replace 20-40 starts isn't that uncommon.

The Yankees had to find 24 starts outside their top 5 SP.

Oakland had 45 starts from outside their top 5 SP.

Texas had 37 starts outsie their top 5 SP.

It is a real competitive advantage to be able to call on a guy as good as Porcello/Smyly, to fill 20-30 of those starts which will otherwise be made by guys who are questionable major leaguers. It is a lot of innings.

[Gehringer_2]

...

I understand that WHIP isn't the end all be all, .....

With a ground ball pitcher with a potential for a lot of DPs, comparing WHIP to fly ball/line drive pitcher probably does undervalue him relatively.

[T&P_Fan]

I also think you can add that the Tigers were very lucky to only have needed 10 starts from Wilk, Turner, Crosby, & Below. A lot of teams struggle to get 30 starts from three pitchers. And easily we could be searching for 20-40 starts from that 6-10 group, in any given season. Look at 2012 Baltimore. They went 12 deep in the rotation and had to come up with 56 starts outside of the top 5 SP's. That is pretty unusual, particularly from a competitive ball club. But needing to replace 20-40 starts isn't that uncommon.

The Yankees had to find 24 starts outside their top 5 SP.

Oakland had 45 starts from outside their top 5 SP.

Texas had 37 starts outsie their top 5 SP.

It is a real competitive advantage to be able to call on a guy as good as Porcello/Smyly, to fill 20-30 of those starts which will otherwise be made by guys who are questionable major leaguers. It is a lot of innings.

The Reds used 6 starting pitchers last year. Todd Redmond started 1 game. Leake, Latos, Bailey, Arroyo, Cueto started every other game.

You just don't know.

[TigersSlappy]

You just don't know.

Truth. Though after we execute the trades for Castro and Stanton as presented in this thread it really won't matter who we have on the mound will it?

[benrush]

Having six good starters to fill four spots is an amazing luxury. Adding Martinez and Hunter along with a full season of Sanchez and Infante all but gurantees in my mind another trip to the post season. Winning the world series should be the goal and we have to assume that Porcello has zero value on a playoff roster, same as this year.

If you keep Porcello and he does well then your forced to trade Smyly assuming he is in the minors. Not sure how you trade a contributing member of a contending team to another contending team or in a return for another piece to a non contending team. If he bombs or has a similar performance to the previous couple seasons he's likely a non-tender and we get nothing. Smyly is cheap and cost controlled longer plus has more value on a playoff roster as a releiver. Planning for injuries assumes your going to have injuries, which almost assures the placebo effect of injuries in my opinion!

Adding anothe piece that helps this year when it matters makes sense. Hardy over Peralta only strengthens our chances in the playoffs and both Fister and Sanchez have had good ground ball rates in the past, which should help. A platoon bat and releiver still help make the 25 man roster stronger than it was prior to trading Porcello.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Why is the team forced to trade Smyly if Porcello does well?

Why is it hard to trade a contributing member of a contending team? Why is it hard to trade with another contending team?

[tiger337]

I don't believe any team in history has had too much starting pitching.

[ballmich]

The Reds used 6 starting pitchers last year. Todd Redmond started 1 game. Leake, Latos, Bailey, Arroyo, Cueto started every other game.

You just don't know.

Of course you don't know. But the Reds were the exception, clearly. And that holds up over a long period of time. Most teams will need at least 20-40 starts coming from their 6-10 SP's.

[holygoat]

After reading the many pages of back-and-forth here, I think the "hold Porcello unless a great offer comes around" side has made the stronger argument. To me it really boils down to health and depth, and the Tigers have been very lucky with regards to the overall health of their starting staff, and starting depth, while a luxury, is not as much a luxury as say, catching depth. I wonder if people align themselves on this issue based on how much they hate or don't hate Porcello in general? I think he's about as good a no. 5 as you're likely to find, which is probably why I'm in no rush to send him packing for what may or may not be an upgrade over Peralta. The Tigers got to the WS with Peralta and didn't lose it because of him. To be honest, I don't think I'd consider any pre-deadline deal that isn't a clear heist for our side.

[4hzglory]

After reading the many pages of back-and-forth here, I think the "hold Porcello unless a great offer comes around" side has made the stronger argument. To me it really boils down to health and depth, and the Tigers have been very lucky with regards to the overall health of their starting staff, and starting depth, while a luxury, is not as much a luxury as say, catching depth. I wonder if people align themselves on this issue based on how much they hate or don't hate Porcello in general? I think he's about as good a no. 5 as you're likely to find, which is probably why I'm in no rush to send him packing for what may or may not be an upgrade over Peralta. The Tigers got to the WS with Peralta and didn't lose it because of him. To be honest, I don't think I'd consider any pre-deadline deal that isn't a clear heist for our side.

Agree completely about Porcello being about as good of a #5 as you are going to get. Disagree about it having to be a heist for me to trade him. If we got a middle IF that was either an improvement over Peralta now or a prospect that is likely to be ready next year (when we currently have openings at 2b & SS) I would definitely do the deal.

Are we likely to need a 6th starter this season? Definitely, probably a 7th and maybe 8th also for a few games. I don't think it's likely our 6th starter starts more than 10-12 games though as the 6th starter isn't likely to be able to get all of the extra starts - i.e. 2 guys could be hurt at the same time, the 6th guy could be hurt, etc. I also think we could put in Below/Crosby/etc and have a good chance of winning at least 40% of the time. With Porcello, that number would probably jump to 55-60%, or 1.5-2 extra wins in 10 starts. Is keeping a guy who likely has no place in the playoff roster worth an extra 2-3 wins when we have probably a 90+ % probability of making the playoffs without him? IMO, not if we can get a decent return that helps us either in 2013 or 2014.

[sabretooth]

Agree completely about Porcello being about as good of a #5 as you are going to get. Disagree about it having to be a heist for me to trade him. If we got a middle IF that was either an improvement over Peralta now or a prospect that is likely to be ready next year (when we currently have openings at 2b & SS) I would definitely do the deal.

Are we likely to need a 6th starter this season? Definitely, probably a 7th and maybe 8th also for a few games. I don't think it's likely our 6th starter starts more than 10-12 games though as the 6th starter isn't likely to be able to get all of the extra starts - i.e. 2 guys could be hurt at the same time, the 6th guy could be hurt, etc. I also think we could put in Below/Crosby/etc and have a good chance of winning at least 40% of the time. With Porcello, that number would probably jump to 55-60%, or 1.5-2 extra wins in 10 starts. Is keeping a guy who likely has no place in the playoff roster worth an extra 2-3 wins when we have probably a 90+ % probability of making the playoffs without him? IMO, not if we can get a decent return that helps us either in 2013 or 2014.

Great summary of the "trade Porcello to upgrade the middle infield" position. Agree completely.

[Gehringer_2]

Great summary of the "trade Porcello to upgrade the middle infield" position. Agree completely.

If DD could find the MIF equivalent of a 2009 Austin Jackson I'd move the 6th pitcher in a heartbeat. A tall order, but not impossible.

[Nastradamus]

Sure it is. Below has pitched 75 ML innings with a 1.27 WHIP, and he isn't very good. You don't think you could piece together 3 guys or so for 180 innings at 1.5 WHIP (the WHIP porcello had last year)? I sure do.

And that's not figuring in what Smyly can do. He pitched 100 innings last year at a 1.268 WHIP.

I understand that WHIP isn't the end all be all, but I think when making back end comparisons it's a fair measure. Porcello is extremely expendable.

Its not close to the end all be all. I could just as easily say, a 3.9 fip/xfip over 170 innings(with no real injuries over 4 years) is damn tough to replace. Most contenders wish they had a guy like Porcello in their 4 or 5 slot.