Rafael Devers

[ottobord]

Originally Posted by Cracktoast

. He can't be worse defensively than A-Rod was.

Yes he can. Arod was an incredible defensive 3B.

[awz50]

Devers is so last month

[soicanbefree]

Hobby cooked.

Thank you form your attention to this matter.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by soicanbefree

Hobby cooked.

Thank you form your attention to this matter.

Yeah, being in the east coast propped him up.

Now he’s lost somewhere west of the Mississippi.

[rwperu34]

I've got the Giants as the #2 market behind only the Yankees.

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by soicanbefree

Hobby cooked.

Thank you form your attention to this matter.

West coast + his performance.

Giants record is amazing since the trade!

[JustinVerlander07]

.750 OPS since the trade. Boston was so smart despite all the backlash.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

.750 OPS since the trade.

His OPS+ is 117 with the Giants, as opposed to a career OPS+ of 128.

So while he's been a little bit below his career numbers, he hasn't been horrible.

He got off to a slow start with the Giants....got hot for about three weeks, and has struggled since he started playing 1B regularly.

[duwal]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

.750 OPS since the trade. Boston was so smart despite all the backlash.

Just needed time to adjust to new ballpark and team, .890 OPS in August

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by duwal

Just needed time to adjust to new ballpark and team, .890 OPS in August

Perhaps! I'll take the larger 200 PA sample size and his comments about 1B though, personally. Bad teammate, gonna be an albatross contract. Boston was smart to get off it.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

Perhaps! I'll take the larger 200 PA sample size and his comments about 1B though, personally. Bad teammate, gonna be an albatross contract. Boston was smart to get off it.

Is there a specific reason why? Is it because he's pudgy and viewed as a poor long-term investment? The bad teammate claim seems overblown and unfounded -- he had problems with Red Sox management and ownership; not his teammates.

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Is there a specific reason why? Is it because he's pudgy and viewed as a poor long-term investment? The bad teammate claim seems overblown and unfounded -- he had problems with Red Sox management and ownership; not his teammates.

His body definitely is a reason for long term concern. That body type doesn't age well (given his athleticism as well or lack thereof) and there are plenty examples to support that. It may seem that way to you, I would disagree and I think it was telling the lack of care, and while his issues were certainly with management. a good teammate doesn't refuse to throw a fit in the media about the position he's playing and/or asked to play, and a good teammate doesn't get upset when after refusing to play the position get upset that someone else volunteers to play that position.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

His body definitely is a reason for long term concern. That body type doesn't age well (given his athleticism as well or lack thereof) and there are plenty examples to support that. It may seem that way to you, I would disagree and I think it was telling the lack of care, and while his issues were certainly with management. a good teammate doesn't refuse to throw a fit in the media about the position he's playing and/or asked to play, and a good teammate doesn't get upset when after refusing to play the position get upset that someone else volunteers to play that position.

Well, there was another former Red Sox player who arguably was less athletic and even more pudgy who put up Hall of Fame stats well into his 30s and even 40s.

But I do think his swing is violent and may not age well.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

Perhaps! I'll take the larger 200 PA sample size and his comments about 1B though, personally. Bad teammate, gonna be an albatross contract. Boston was smart to get off it.

The whole "albatross contact" angle just doesn't hold water for me, because salaries are constantly rising. By the time his production decreases, salary levels will have increased so much that average players will be making what he makes.

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Well, there was another former Red Sox player who arguably was less athletic and even more pudgy who put up Hall of Fame stats well into his 30s and even 40s.

But I do think his swing is violent and may not age well.

Absolutely, and a far longer list of guys who aged quite poorly.

Originally Posted by mfw13

The whole "albatross contact" angle just doesn't hold water for me, because salaries are constantly rising. By the time his production decreases, salary levels will have increased so much that average players will be making what he makes.

Doesn't hold water because he plays for your team, correct?

Because a guy doesn't need to make $60 million to have an 'albatross contract'

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

Doesn't hold water because he plays for your team, correct?

Because a guy doesn't need to make $60 million to have an 'albatross contract'

No....because it ends at his age 36 season, during which he'll be making a whopping $31 million.

The Mets are committed to pay Juan Soto over $200 million after his age 36 season.

The Yankees are committed to pay Aaron Judge $120 million after his age 36 season.

The Blue Jays are committed to pay Vlad Jr. $123 million after his age 36 season.

The Angels will still have to pay Mike Trout $75 million after his age 36 season.

The Padres will be paying Manny Machado $156 million after his age 36 season.

Those are contracts that are going to age poorly.

But the Giants will for the most part be out from under Devers contract before he enters his serious decline phase.

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by mfw13

No....because it ends at his age 36 season, during which he'll be making a whopping $31 million.

The Mets are committed to pay Juan Soto over $200 million after his age 36 season.

The Yankees are committed to pay Aaron Judge $120 million after his age 36 season.

The Blue Jays are committed to pay Vlad Jr. $123 million after his age 36 season.

The Angels will still have to pay Mike Trout $75 million after his age 36 season.

The Padres will be paying Manny Machado $156 million after his age 36 season.

Those are contracts that are going to age poorly.

But the Giants will for the most part be out from under Devers contract before he enters his serious decline phase.

When is Devers' 'serious decline phase' going to start?

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

When is Devers' 'serious decline phase' going to start?

For most good hitters it's sometime between ages 34-36.

Pujols' first season with an OPS+ <100 was his age 36 season.

Miggy's was in his age 34 season, but he bounced back to a 128 OPS+ in his age 35 season.

Ichiro's first bad season was his age 37 season.

David Ortiz never declined and had a 164 OPS+ at age 40.

Derek Jeter's first decline season was at age 36.

So Devers will likely have a couple of average seasons at the end of his contract with the Giants, but given his salary level, they won't be too painful in terms of value.

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by mfw13

For most good hitters it's sometime between ages 34-36.

Pujols' first season with an OPS+ <100 was his age 36 season.

Miggy's was in his age 34 season, but he bounced back to a 128 OPS+ in his age 35 season.

Ichiro's first bad season was his age 37 season.

David Ortiz never declined and had a 164 OPS+ at age 40.

Derek Jeter's first decline season was at age 36.

So Devers will likely have a couple of average seasons at the end of his contract with the Giants, but given his salary level, they won't be too painful in terms of value.

Interesting you are comparing a very good/great, but not elite hitter with some of the best from the 2000s. I think if he wasn't on your team you don't hold the same opinions at all on him.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

Interesting you are comparing a very good/great, but not elite hitter with some of the best from the 2000s. I think if he wasn't on your team you don't hold the same opinions at all on him.

OK....here are some guys who finished their careers with the exact same OPS+ as Devers has now (128):

Tim Salmon - first bad season at age 35.
Jim Rice - league average seasons at age 34/35, first bad season at age 36.
Ryan Klesko - hurt for age 35 season, first bad season at age 36.
Kent Hrbek - league average at age 34, after which he retired due to injuries.
Moises Alou - still an above average hitter when he retired at age 41.
Bobby Abreu - first bad season at age 38.

Point being that no matter who you look at, declines generally start around age 34/35, and Devers is only under contract to the Giants thru his age 36 season.

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by mfw13

OK....here are some guys who finished their careers with the exact same OPS+ as Devers has now (128):

Tim Salmon - first bad season at age 35.
Jim Rice - league average seasons at age 34/35, first bad season at age 36.
Ryan Klesko - hurt for age 35 season, first bad season at age 36.
Kent Hrbek - league average at age 34, after which he retired due to injuries.
Moises Alou - still an above average hitter when he retired at age 41.
Bobby Abreu - first bad season at age 38.

Point being that no matter who you look at, declines generally start around age 34/35, and Devers is only under contract to the Giants thru his age 36 season.

Perhaps we find some guys with bad bodies who don't provide any defensive value to make a more apt comparison. I appreciate your efforts but most of these situations aren't apples to apples, but it's perhaps more of a case that he is a non elite bat that also doesn't provide any defensive value.

Not everyone ages the same I suppose is where you are going with this, but to show trends we need closer comps, I don't actually care enough to look, though.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by mfw13

OK....here are some guys who finished their careers with the exact same OPS+ as Devers has now (128):

Tim Salmon - first bad season at age 35.
Jim Rice - league average seasons at age 34/35, first bad season at age 36.
Ryan Klesko - hurt for age 35 season, first bad season at age 36.
Kent Hrbek - league average at age 34, after which he retired due to injuries.
Moises Alou - still an above average hitter when he retired at age 41.
Bobby Abreu - first bad season at age 38.

Point being that no matter who you look at, declines generally start around age 34/35, and Devers is only under contract to the Giants thru his age 36 season.

Ryan Klesko is a good comp. Devers has more raw power, though.