LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
Go to page 1, 2  Next  [ 21 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

Lyles was a money thing, right?

Author Message
Offline  Lyles was a money thing, right?
#1

Posted: May 20, 2019, 12:20 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 158
Location: Chicago
Lyles has some great numbers for the Pirates and really isn't doing anything different than he did with Milwaukee in terms of hits, walks and homers allowed. Maybe I'm missing something in the peripherals but that kind of production seems like they could've picked up the option and swapped him off to somebody at least.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#2

Posted: May 20, 2019, 12:24 PM Post
User avatar

Resident Hipster
Global Moderator
Posts: 12191
Not picking up Lyles' option remains one of the most baffling moves of Stearns' tenure, IMO. Not quit signing Neftali Feliz bad, but close.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#3

Posted: May 20, 2019, 12:49 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 6961
I too was struggling to understand this one. Lyles is at worst a solid, very affordable long reliever capable of providing multiple innings of relief in an outing. He has also showed a live arm capable of bring it in the upper 90s with decent movement, and solid secondary stuff. I thought he was an ideal bottom of the pen arm, as he brings a lot of attributes that this team's front office values. It is obvious they must have saw something different. Perhaps they saw the good number of solid arms they were bringing back this year and decided having someone like Lyles kicking around was a luxury they didn't need?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#4

Posted: May 20, 2019, 12:52 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2455
1. Lyles is having an extremely lucky season. He's a nice player that I'd have been fine bringing back but he's barely better than the journeyman that he has been the last handful of years right now. BABIP, strand rate, HR/FB% are all well below career averages.
2. Hindsight is not just 20/20 here, it's 20/40.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#5

Posted: May 20, 2019, 12:58 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1038
It seemed a little weird at the time that we let him go, but he definitely wouldn't have been in our rotation and at the time it didn't really seem like he was needed in the bullpen (he wasn't even on the playoff roster). Maybe if they'd known Jeffress would start the year on the IL and Knebel would be gone, we would've held onto him, but at the time he seemed a bit too expensive for what it seemed like he was worth.

Glad to see him pitching well, we'll see what his numbers look like by the end of the season. Starting pitching isn't really our problem right now.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#6

Posted: May 20, 2019, 1:00 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 11814
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Can't hold onto everyone. You're going to have these things happen.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#7

Posted: May 20, 2019, 1:01 PM Post
Posts: 4099
Location: Madison, WI
I'm guessing he didn't have an option either? so keeping him would've meant up all year. I agree he tended to fit the long relief role they like here so I was surprised too but of course never thought anything like this from him. Just thought a decent depth guy. Who knows, maybe expressed a desire to start and they tried to do him a solid.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#8

Posted: May 20, 2019, 1:02 PM Post
User avatar

Resident Hipster
Global Moderator
Posts: 12191
bill hAll Star said:
1. Lyles is having an extremely lucky season.

DRA- has him at a 70. Contextually, he's having about the season he should be having.

bill hAll Star said:
2. Hindsight is not just 20/20 here, it's 20/40.

I thought it was a weird move at the time it happened. I can go dig up a link if you'd like.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#9

Posted: May 20, 2019, 1:06 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2455
And That said:
bill hAll Star said:
2. Hindsight is not just 20/20 here, it's 20/40.

I thought it was a weird move at the time it happened. I can go dig up a link if you'd like.


That's fine and good foresight on your part. There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep a league average swing pitcher for $2.5 million or whatever it would've been.

These topics and consensus, "head-scratcher" are popping up because he's had a lucky start to the year and is putting up All-Star numbers. Again, maybe you're the one that saw it but I'd guess you or I 9 of the other 10 times we've said, "wow I'd have kept him for that" about a player would end up in the player being average or worse.

I will give you this: If the Brewers helped foster this change, then they should've held on. But it was probably a roster crunch issue pre-injuries.

https://fantasy.fangraphs.com/on-jordan-lyles-breakout/


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#10

Posted: May 20, 2019, 1:34 PM Post
Posts: 4338
tmwiese55 said:
I'm guessing he didn't have an option either? so keeping him would've meant up all year. I agree he tended to fit the long relief role they like here so I was surprised too but of course never thought anything like this from him. Just thought a decent depth guy. Who knows, maybe expressed a desire to start and they tried to do him a solid.


That's what I was thinking. If he was going to be the bottom of the pen here he has to be more valuable than the several pitchers we can swap out at will.

There needs to be a King Thames version of the bible.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#11

Posted: May 20, 2019, 2:01 PM Post
Posts: 1945
Jopal78! said:
Lyles has some great numbers for the Pirates and really isn't doing anything different than he did with Milwaukee in terms of hits, walks and homers allowed. Maybe I'm missing something in the peripherals but that kind of production seems like they could've picked up the option and swapped him off to somebody at least.


One of the sites had his option as $1M or something, but that was wrong it was $3.5M. And without a minor league shuttle option.....


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#12

Posted: May 20, 2019, 2:23 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 2143
Combination of costing more than our internal arms, having less flexibility than our internal arms on account of not having any options left & not being demonstrably better than those same internal arms that were cheaper/provided more roster flexibility.

It's almost like a pitching version of Choi.

When you are already a good MLB team & are also good at identifying useful pieces around the margins (as it seems Stearns & company are), you will inevitably have to let some of those pieces around the margins go because there just isn't room for all of them on the 25 man roster.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#13

Posted: May 20, 2019, 2:24 PM Post
Posts: 4360
Location: New Berlin, WI
Roderick said:
Jopal78! said:
Lyles has some great numbers for the Pirates and really isn't doing anything different than he did with Milwaukee in terms of hits, walks and homers allowed. Maybe I'm missing something in the peripherals but that kind of production seems like they could've picked up the option and swapped him off to somebody at least.


One of the sites had his option as $1M or something, but that was wrong it was $3.5M. And without a minor league shuttle option.....


Right. If he happened to be unlucky on BABIP instead of lucky, we'd all be screaming to DFA him if he were a Brewer. Also factor in playing in a pitchers park and his stuff hasn't significantly changed since last year...it's not THAT bad of a move.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#14

Posted: May 20, 2019, 2:29 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1801
We are talking about the same pitcher who, save for an extra innings outing where he got a hit, was one of the more disposable arms, according to most of BF.net, last year, yeah?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#15

Posted: May 20, 2019, 3:13 PM Post
Posts: 1639
sveumrules said:
Combination of costing more than our internal arms, having less flexibility than our internal arms on account of not having any options left & not being demonstrably better than those same internal arms that were cheaper/provided more roster flexibility.

It's almost like a pitching version of Choi.

When you are already a good MLB team & are also good at identifying useful pieces around the margins (as it seems Stearns & company are), you will inevitably have to let some of those pieces around the margins go because there just isn't room for all of them on the 25 man roster.


This.
Adrian Houser and Jordan Lyles are very similar pitchers, both have FBs 94-95, both have big curve balls, Houser has an option and makes 2 mil less.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#16

Posted: May 20, 2019, 4:46 PM Post
Posts: 10725
Okay so we didn’t bring back Jordan Lyles, so what. We ended up with Gio Gonzalez who is doing essentially the same thing. We can’t use hindsight to regret all 10 overachievers we should have signed to be in our 15 man rotation.

We got Gio Gonzalez for the same price and I think I would bet on him to be better than Lyles.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#17

Posted: May 20, 2019, 4:54 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5862
A strong argument could be made that Albers was (is) a sunk cost and a declining asset, and that Lyles was a better option. However, had Jeffress and Knebel not gotten injured in spring training, and had Anderson not been needed in the rotation due to Burnes horrible start, there is a very good chance that Albers doesn't make the team, or at least certainly gets released by the time Nelson returns. In that case, it could have been Lyles getting released and a waste of $3.5M.

Young pitchers are probably going to struggle at first, but they can only learn so much at AAA. Eventually they have to take their lumps in the majors and get experience against major league hitters. It's easy to say guys have options and send them to AAA, but that eventually offers no additional benefit.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#18

Posted: May 21, 2019, 9:25 AM Post
Posts: 1571
Location: Madison, WI
From 2015-2017, Lyles threw 177 1/3 MLB innings and had a 6.39 ERA, 4.79 FIP, 1.62 WHIP and a K/BB ratio <2. In the first half of 2018, he was so mediocre performing in a pitcher's park (4.29 ERA, 4.45 WHIP) that the Padres waived him and just let him walk so they could audition younger pitchers. He got a 2.05 million dollar free agent deal this off-season, more than 40 other pitchers got free agent contracts worth more. Why did the Brewers pass on a 3.5 million dollar commitment? Probably it was because Lyles history didn't justify that number. The market only giving him about 60% of that number is real solid evidence that not many teams would have picked up a 3.5 million dollar option on him (maybe none).

History and sample size matters more than anything. Lyles pitched well for the Brewers but it was only 16 1/3 innings. Looking at the total picture from 2016-2018, Lyles was a 5.75 ERA, 4.73 FIP, 1.51 WHIP pitcher. Congrats to the Pirates and their crystal ball for hitting on their flier investment this off-season.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#19

Posted: May 21, 2019, 10:59 AM Post
User avatar

Resident Hipster
Global Moderator
Posts: 12191
The Brewers helped Lyles reinvent his curveball. His curve is now, shockingly, the reason behind the success he's had with the Pirates this year. So the Brewers basically developed Lyles for the Pirates. You're welcome, division rival.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#20

Posted: May 22, 2019, 10:01 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 10819
This is nothing but a pure fluke, nothing in his peripherals supports his ERA this season. He may be a high 3 ERA guy instead of a high 4 guy but that is about the best you can hope for from him. His barrel rate against, hard hit percent against, BB% etc are all higher than they have been in recent seasons. He is striking more out which is good but everything else is pointing to absolute fluke. No big loss.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page 1, 2  Next  [ 21 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: igor67, JCREW, MrTPlush, remfire, sveumrules, trwi7 and 25 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search this forum (phpBB search):
Jump to:  
Search entire board (Google search):
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Test