Byrd for Lively: Opinions?

[Bourgeois Zee]

According to Ken Rosenthal, it's Lively for Byrd and serious cash. (Enough to cover most of his salary, apparently.) It's obviously a gamble, as Byrd's BaBIP was .340 last season. (That said, his BaBIP has been high his entire career. His career BaBIP is .326.) He doesn't need to do much to outstrip the trainwreck that was last season's LF. His defense, as a RFer, was just better than league average. As a LF, it should be better than that. Last year, he hit fifth most often (with a nearly 800 OPS). This season, I think he'll end up hitting lower. Perhaps sixth?

Doubt they make make another deal for an offensive starter. Still need some relief help and have some money to spend (according to Jocketty and Cot's). What can $8 million buy that can make a difference this season?

Would it be best to grab a former closer like Rafael Soriano and plus him in as a set-up guy behind Chapman? Worked with Broxton the past couple of year. How about two or three formerly dominant guys looking to rebound? I'd be all over Jesse Crain as a gamble-- shoulder issues left him out last season, but he was awesome the year before that in Chicago.

Cincinnati also needs a fourth OFer. (I assume Bourgeois will caddy in CF for Hamilton, as he was protected for a reason.) Mike Carp could play both LF and 1B. He'd come relatively cheap. Maybe Ryan Doumit?

[CarolinaRedsfan]

Unless he has signed somewhere, I would like them to sign Bonafacio(sp?).

[Bourgeois Zee]

Bonifacio is a good option, as he can play CF and the middle infield. However, didn't they just deal for Suarez to give him that option?

My pick is free agent Andy Dirks.

He can play all three OF positions, has serious upside, and hits RH well.

He'd definitely play as a fourth OF. I suspect he would also be able to learn 1B as Votto's caddy. He's a good PH, too.

They might also go after a reliever or two with the extra $4 million on the deal plus the nearly $10 million they can use from the earlier deals.

[dougdirt]

Byrd is more likely to OPS below .700 than he is over .775. That's not something the Reds should be looking for when acquiring players that start and aren't pitchers. Losing Lively isn't likely to hurt them because of the amount of pitching depth the team has in the minors, though Lively is a future big leaguer - perhaps as early as this year. I just think it's a bad trade because the Reds are now relying on a guy who is more likely to suck at hitting than he is to be good at hitting.

[kaldaniels]

Byrd is more likely to OPS below .700 than he is over .775. That's not something the Reds should be looking for when acquiring players that start and aren't pitchers. Losing Lively isn't likely to hurt them because of the amount of pitching depth the team has in the minors, though Lively is a future big leaguer - perhaps as early as this year. I just think it's a bad trade because the Reds are now relying on a guy who is more likely to suck at hitting than he is to be good at hitting.

It's silly to go back too far...but lets go back to 2008.

Since 2008, how many seasons has Byrd "sucked" at hitting? 2012 is one for sure.

After you have answered that, why are you worried that in 2015 will be one in which Byrd will suck?

[Bourgeois Zee]

I don't understand the comment about why he'd be more likely to OPS lower than 700 than over 775. Isn't that kind of a false choice?

1) He doesn't have to OPS over 775 for this trade to be successful. He's not a cornerstone of the offense-- those are reserved for Mesoraco, Votto, Bruce, and Frazier. He just doesn't have to suck really, really badly. Last year, Reds' LF had a 73 wRC+. They were almost two wins below replacement level. Last year, Byrd had a wRC+ of 109 and was almost two wins above replacement level. Let's say he sucks and has a 700 OPS bat while playing league average defense in LF. Isn't that still right at two wins better than last year's LF? In other words, he can totally suck and still be far better than the crap Cincinnati put out in LF last year.

It's all about getting better, right?

The biggest jumps aren't going to be from Ludwick to Byrd (though a two win jump is big, obviously). It's going to come from last year's less than replacement level production from 1B to whatever Votto can do this season. (It was a 6.5 win swing from 2013 to 2014.) It's going to come from whatever Bruce can do. (A 5.6 win swing from 2013 to 2014.) Should Bruce and Votto return to form and Byrd be slightly better than replacement level, Cincinnati could be 14 wins better.

2) There are two different prediction systems that have already pegged Byrd's time as a Red. One (Steamer?) has him dropping off a cliff this season. It had him dropping off a cliff last season too. (I suppose if you continue to do that, you'll be right at least once, right?) The other (ZiPS?) has him holding pretty steady and performing really well, relatively speaking.

Why is Steamer right and ZiPS wrong? Is one correct more often?

[herbdizzle]

I like the trade. Byrd is costing us about $4 million for this year. He was having a productive year last year until September which I attribute a lot to playing 150+ games which he should not be doing at 36. I do think the Reds need another good LHH outfielder to use with Byrd to keep his PA's to about 400-475 which I think is the sweet spot to keeping him healthy and maximizing production. An 18-20 HR, 70+ RBI with a .270 BA and 700+ .OPS is perfectly reasonable to expect if he is used properly.

[dMaus14]

My only question to the trade is: If we were looking for players who get on base, why did we settle for Marlon Byrd?

[dougdirt]

It's silly to go back too far...but lets go back to 2008.

Since 2008, how many seasons has Byrd "sucked" at hitting? 2012 is one for sure.

After you have answered that, why are you worried that in 2015 will be one in which Byrd will suck?

Because hitters with 185/35 Strikeout to walk ratios tend to really suck at hitting in the long run. 5 to 1 is not a way to be a good hitter. At some point that's going to catch up to you. When you also show declining power (sub 450 SLG) it's two big old negatives working against you.

For Byrd to continue to not suck he's going to have to either walk more, strike out significantly less than he did in 204 or hit for a decent bit of more power than he did in 2014.

Marlon Byrd has never walked, so expecting that is a poor bet.

Marlon Byrd turns 37 next year. Philly is a power friendly ballpark too, so he probably doesn't get a boost in power from moving to GABP. 37 year olds tend to have declining power, not improving power. So expecting more power probably isn't a good bet, though it's a better bet than him walking more.

Marlon Byrd has watched his strikeout rate go up 79% in the last four seasons. That is staggeringly bad. He's 37. Players tend to be losing bat speed at this age. It's not a good bet that he starts making significantly more contact at this point in his career. It's a better bet than him walking more, but if he changes his approach to make more contact it's probably going to cost him power too.

All of those things combined tell me he's more likely to suck at hitting than be good at it.

[selcats]

Because hitters with 185/35 Strikeout to walk ratios tend to really suck at hitting in the long run. 5 to 1 is not a way to be a good hitter. At some point that's going to catch up to you. When you also show declining power (sub 450 SLG) it's two big old negatives working against you.

For Byrd to continue to not suck he's going to have to either walk more, strike out significantly less than he did in 204 or hit for a decent bit of more power than he did in 2014.

Marlon Byrd has never walked, so expecting that is a poor bet.

Marlon Byrd turns 37 next year. Philly is a power friendly ballpark too, so he probably doesn't get a boost in power from moving to GABP. 37 year olds tend to have declining power, not improving power. So expecting more power probably isn't a good bet, though it's a better bet than him walking more.

Marlon Byrd has watched his strikeout rate go up 79% in the last four seasons. That is staggeringly bad. He's 37. Players tend to be losing bat speed at this age. It's not a good bet that he starts making significantly more contact at this point in his career. It's a better bet than him walking more, but if he changes his approach to make more contact it's probably going to cost him power too.

All of those things combined tell me he's more likely to suck at hitting than be good at it.

I love listening to all of these so called experts. It is actually pretty entertaining. Why don't we just see what happens and leave all the other stuff to the professionals.

[dougdirt]

I don't understand the comment about why he'd be more likely to OPS lower than 700 than over 775. Isn't that kind of a false choice?

1) He doesn't have to OPS over 775 for this trade to be successful. He's not a cornerstone of the offense-- those are reserved for Mesoraco, Votto, Bruce, and Frazier. He just doesn't have to suck really, really badly. Last year, Reds' LF had a 73 wRC+. They were almost two wins below replacement level. Last year, Byrd had a wRC+ of 109 and was almost two wins above replacement level. Let's say he sucks and has a 700 OPS bat while playing league average defense in LF. Isn't that still right at two wins better than last year's LF? In other words, he can totally suck and still be far better than the crap Cincinnati put out in LF last year.

It's all about getting better, right?

The biggest jumps aren't going to be from Ludwick to Byrd (though a two win jump is big, obviously). It's going to come from last year's less than replacement level production from 1B to whatever Votto can do this season. (It was a 6.5 win swing from 2013 to 2014.) It's going to come from whatever Bruce can do. (A 5.6 win swing from 2013 to 2014.) Should Bruce and Votto return to form and Byrd be slightly better than replacement level, Cincinnati could be 14 wins better.

2) There are two different prediction systems that have already pegged Byrd's time as a Red. One (Steamer?) has him dropping off a cliff this season. It had him dropping off a cliff last season too. (I suppose if you continue to do that, you'll be right at least once, right?) The other (ZiPS?) has him holding pretty steady and performing really well, relatively speaking.

Why is Steamer right and ZiPS wrong? Is one correct more often?

Being better than 2014 in left field was almost impossible not to do. In theory, the Reds were probably already going to be 2 wins better there simply because thats how replacement level works and the Reds weren't going to run minor leaguers out there. That was not going to happen. They were going to acquire some sort of Major Leaguer for the job, so I don't really factor in what happened in 2014 into the matter because that wasn't going to repeat itself.

The projection systems are both pretty close in terms of their overall accuracy. Steamer seems far more correct on this one to me though. ZiPS projects Byrd to pick up significant power at age 37 despite it significantly dropping off at age 36. That just doesn't make sense in my mind. I'm sure there's a reason it says that, perhaps a comp for him had a season where he went from 35 with power to 36 without power to 37 with power or something like that, but the theory of him finding that power again at 37 doesn't really make sense with how baseball players tend to work.

[dougdirt]

I love listening to all of these so called experts. It is actually pretty entertaining. Why don't we just see what happens and leave all the other stuff to the professionals.

I guess there's a reason you have four posts in 9+ years on the site. It's strange though that you seem to come here often enough for someone who doesn't like listening to what people think.

[selcats]

I guess there's a reason you have four posts in 9+ years on the site. It's strange though that you seem to come here often enough for someone who doesn't like listening to what people think.

The number of posts doesn't change the fact that you are pretty clueless. I guess I hit a nerve.

[dougdirt]

The number of posts doesn't change the fact that you are pretty clueless. I guess I hit a nerve.

No, you hit the hypocrisy button where you complained about reading opinions while on a message board and I couldn't help but laugh and call you out on it.

As far as clueless.... no.

[selcats]

No, you hit the hypocrisy button where you complained about reading opinions while on a message board and I couldn't help but laugh and call you out on it.

As far as clueless.... no.

Actually you are pretty entertaining and make most people laugh. And yes you are clueless. True I normally don't post because I work for a living serving my country. I leave most of the posting to people like you that contribute nothing to society.