MLB Trade Rumors Member Posts

 

Chi Sox's Profile

Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded

No Profile Picture uploaded

Team:


Where from:


Favourite player:


Best team moment:


Interests:


Timezone:




Chi Sox's Posts and Other Poster's Replies To Chi Sox's Posts

 

 

To Chi Sox's last 5 rumours posts

 

To Chi Sox's last 5 talk posts

 

To Chi Sox's last 5 rumour replies

 

To Chi Sox's last 5 talk replies

 

Chi Sox's rumours posts with other poster's replies to Chi Sox's rumours posts

 

14 Jul 2021 04:19:54
White Sox/Rockies

White Sox get:
Trevor Story SS

Rockies get:
Matthew Thompson RHP
Bryan Ramos INF
Gavin Sheets 1B/OF

Chi Sox

1.) 14 Jul 2021 15:55:22
LOL. AT this point, unless you're getting a lesser-touted rental like Eduardo Escobar, the White Sox are going to have to give up Kelley, Vera, or Cespedes.

Literally every team in baseball would best that offer for Trevor Story.


2.) 14 Jul 2021 17:47:20
Escobar is "lesser-touted" I guess, but I'm not so sure Arizona gets a lot less for him compared to what Colorado gets for Story. The former has been 16% better at the plate - I think that's notable. Story gives you the defensive advantage, for sure, but then again, what's the market for Story?

Everyone says Oakland, but will they pay the money?

OK, maybe the Yankees would be a fit, but will they even be buyers in a couple weeks? Are they bench Gleyber or Voit, or sending Stanton to LF every day?

The Mets at 2B? Maybe.

The Reds make sense if they feel like they're actually contenders, but they might need a SP more than anything.

Point is, I don't really see anyone shoveling out a "huge" package for a 92 wRC+ as a 2.5 month rental. And yes, I do know Story is on a 3.8-win pace and is a very good player even with below-average offensive production, which I why I'm offering 3 solid prospects.

Colorado simply needs to get more value then the comp pick they'd receive next summer from Story's departure. They get 3 good looking prospects who are collectively much more valuable than that pick. I'm not really surprised that you hate the group of 3, but evaluators love Ramos and what he has done this year, Thompson is projectable albeit still quite a project, and Sheets is clearly a ML ready bat without a long-term spot in Chicago.

Not even saying Kelley, Vera, or Cespedes would be completely off the table either. I just think the Rox would like this package.


3.) 14 Jul 2021 18:35:49
I was reliably told, by you, that 40 FV prospects were not "solid prospects. " When I brought up the Mark Melancon trade and said they got a great return, you scoffed at it, because Tristan Beck was a 40 FV.

Now, it's a solid return? It's incredible how you speak out of both sides of your mouth when it's convenient to the argument you're trying to make.

Also, if you think that the Chicago White Sox are the only team who make an offer for Trevor Story, you're out of your mind. And it doesn't even have to be a "huge" package. The return the Rockies are getting is super underwhelming.

That "MLB Ready" player has 47 plate appearances. Once again, you lambasted me for touting Darin Ruf over 100 PAs, but Sheets only needs 47? Seriously, your arguments are so lacking in awareness over what you've said before. It's almost like you just say a bunch of nonsense and hope no one remembers.

Ramos and Thompson are 40-grade prospects in single-A. They are definitely the guys who get tossed in as add-ons, and certainly not the main grabs you think they are. They are, by every account, run-of-the-mill prospects.

Thompson is not a "good looking prospect: by any means. He's nearly walking a batter per inning in Single-A and giving up an earned run per as well.

If this is the ONLY offer the Rockies get for Trevor Story, I could maybe see it. But we both know it won't be the only offer, and we both know that someone else will offer something better.

Perhaps, as you keep talking, TRY to remember what you've said before. Then you can either denounce it as the nonsense we both knew it was OR you can try and keep it up and stay consistent.

But you won't do either.


4.) 15 Jul 2021 02:52:46
I don't currently have either Ramos or Sheets as 40 FVs. You're obviously free to disagree with me as there's clearly no science to FV grades. Thompson has thrown all of 25 professional innings with control issues - denounce him and his future outlook through that stretch if that's how you evaluate prospects.

And I'm not saying Sheets headlines a major deal because of 47 solid PAs. I'm saying those PAs help confirm his status as a good pro hitter who's never had a wRC+ below 120 in any of his full pro seasons. It would be a nice piece for Colorado. Ramos, albeit young, has looked quite good in Kannapolis as the numbers confirm. It also not like Colorado is looking to reload for a 2022 run either.

The disconnect here (that is, if you're actually trying to break down a potential deal) is that you believe that Story will command a large return even after I outlined his thin market PLUS the fact that someone like Javy Baez could also be available with almost identical trade value.

I just don't agree with that. We could compare the Manny Machado to LAD deal.

Baltimore got Yusniel Diaz (45+), Dean Kremer (40), Breyvic Valera (40) Zach Pop (40) and Rylon Bannon (35) for Machado who had a 155 wRC+ at the time of the deal and was already worth almost 4 WINS through 96 games, that's 2 full wins better than Story.

All that said, I think the value lines up pretty well. You want too make the argument that Colorado demands Norge Vera or Cespedes for some reason, then so be it.


5.) 15 Jul 2021 13:38:05
Oh trust me, I'm well aware that you have Sheets and Ramos as 50-55 FV prospects.

Also, Story's market isn't THAT weak. You just think it is because it's the only way you can justify this hilariously bad trade. I'm by no means suggesting that Story will command some 50 FV prospect, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone gives it up.

But if you don't think the Yankees, Reds, A's, or even the Brewers, Astros, Mets, Phillies, or even the Giants or Dodgers (less likely because of the division) wouldn't jump all over the chance to trade 3 40-grade prospects to get Trevor Story for a couple of months, then you're being unrealistic on purpose.

The Rockies will have no problem trading him, and I don't think they'll have to "settle" for a pathetic trade like you just proposed just because some guy on the interwebs thinks the "market isn't there. "

Story will be just fine. His x-stats are similar to his 6-win seasons. .337 xwOBA currently. He's got a BABIP that is 50 points lower than his career numbers. I'd imagine a handful of teams would gladly leverage some farm depth to see if they can get his old production.

It won't be just the White Sox on him. And it won't be just a couple ho-hum 40-FV prospects going back to Colorado.


6.) 15 Jul 2021 13:45:47
Let's explore your "market" ideas:

Oakland- They are likely out to begin with, per their own statements.

Yankees- Would they bench Torres? Considering he's hitting 82 wRC, it's very possible.

Mets- They could try Story at 3B. They are reportedly looking at updates there. It'd be an odd fit, but it's not the first time a team has put s player at a new spot mid-season after a trade.

Reds- Yes, they need SP. They also need a SS. And they have a lot of prospect capital to get both. ESPECIALLY if all it will take is a handful of 40-FV prospects to land Story. Believe it or not, but teams can make more than one trade.

This doesn't, again, account for the Brewers, who look for middle infielders like Derek Jeter looks for supermodels. Or the Dodgers who will gladly take the depth. Or the Astros who can't keep Correa or Bregman healthy. Or the Mariners, who are always wildcards for any trade. Or the Phillies, who may not get Bohm back this year.

If all it takes is the package you put forth, LOTS of teams will be in on Trevor Story.


7.) 15 Jul 2021 15:04:44
This is helping my point. You just set out scenarios where maybe, possibly, kinda sorta one could find a reason to believe that each team could make a move for Story.

The Reds and Yankees are really not that good. Neither are the Mets, but the NL East can't ever figure it out on a year-to-year basis. Plus the Yankees are adamant about not crossing the luxury tax threshold which a Story acquisition would do. *This team* is the one they're going to pay extra for? Oakland is out too because of money I guess?

Would the White Sox be the team that currently makes the MOST sense out these teams, even with then moving him to 2B? It actually kind of looks that way. Do I see it as a likely transaction? No. Actually, i'd be somewhat surprised if Escobar isn't back in Chicago by the end of the month, but Story is the more exciting grab.

You say lots of teams would outbid the package; then who and why and with what?

The other teams you mentioned:

The Brewers have 115 and 128 wRC+ in the middle infield respectively. Could they move Peterson to third to make it work? I guess.

The Dodgers could maybe possibly make sense, but then you're likely shifting Chris Taylor out of an everyday role. I wouldn't do that. They're also going to need a SP, especially if Bauer is unable to come back this year and 1 or 2 proven RPs. And we're talking in division.

The Astros have Bregman, Correa, Altuve and Gurriel on their infield. Unless one of them suffers a season-ending injury in the next couple of weeks, he ain't going to Houston, no matter how dinged up they are.

The Mariners in an acquire and attempt to resign kind of thing? I guess maybe, but let's be honest, they're not real championship contenders this year.

Now the Phillies I could actually see if they feel like they can track down the Mets and if they're done waiting on Bohm to produce this year.

Even if you don't consider this batch of teams a "weak" market, you can't say its a strong one. The package Colorado gets back is most likely headlined by 45 FV prospect, if that. Again, Machado only got a 45+ for a 4-win 1st half. And if the Cubs start testing the waters with Baez's name, then that only hurts Story's value.


8.) 15 Jul 2021 20:25:51
I'm saying that if all it takes is a package of middling prospects to get Trevor Story, lots of teams would take the gamble. Heck, the Giants don't exactly have a spot for him, but I'd bet you anything, if Zaidi could get him for 3 40-FV prospects, he'd do it almost immediately.

As far as specific teams, you can try and explain it away, but they all make sense.

The Brewers could match or best that offer and stick Story at 2B or 3B (or moved Adames somewhere) . They could certainly use the help.

The Dodgers would simply move Gavin Lux's 90 wRC+ to the bench (or realistically, OKC) and put Story there.

The Astros currently have Bregman healing a major injury, which put him on the 60-Day IL. And if all it takes is a measly group of ho-hum prospects, who the heck cares if he acts as a bit of depth and you move guys to the bench and mix-and-match? Again, if it's not going to take a significant prospect, why not?

The Mariners, who are just 3.5 games out of the Wild Card, might see a chance. Story would be an upgrade over Dylan Moore (75 wRC+) and possibly even J. P. Crawford going forward. He'd boost them at the right time, especially for a package of 40-grade dudes.

The Mets? You might not think they are good, but they are #1 in the NL East and hold a 6.5 game lead. They'll add depth, and Story would fit right in. They are reportedly looking at 3B additions, and could mix it up and try Story there.

The Phillies, again, could fit.

Heck, if all it took to land Trevor Story was 3 40-grade prospects, I wouldn't be surprised if the Red Sox did something, and moved Devers to 1B.

The point is, Henry, if it's not going to take very much to land Trevor Story, which you so adamantly believe (mostly because that's the only scenario in which the White Sox can land any player), then Story's market grows, exponentially.

Yours is a classic case, and you do it all the time, hilariously, where you try to pretend a team (in your case, the White Sox) is the ONLY team who could realistically land anyone, and you pretend that no one else can afford him, needs him, or should get him.

And then you try to downplay how good that player is, mostly because what is really going on is you're trying to cope with not wanting to give up the minimal talent the White Sox have in terms of farm system to acquire him.

The fact is, Story is going to command a pretty decent return. It's not going to be a top 100 prospect, but it's also not going to be led by a 40-grade kid, either.

For the White Sox, I think it HAS to start with Jared Kelley, and even then, I don't think that's the best offer the Rockies would get.


9.) 15 Jul 2021 20:59:18
Now, while totally futile, because we both know you'll nitpick on each of these (mostly to distract everyone from your laughably bad trade), but here's a deal I think each of those teams could make for Story. All of which, mind you, would top the White Sox offer:

Reds- Rece Hinds (45), Aristides Aquino, Graham Ashcraft (40)
Yankees- T. J. Sikkema (40+), Oswaldo Cabrera (40+), Everson Pereira (40+)
Mets- J. T. Ginn (45), Alexander Ramirez (40+), Junior Santos (40)
Brewers- Mario Feliciano (45), Tristan Lutz (40+)
Dodgers- Alex De Jesus (45), Robinson Ortiz (40+), Jerming Rosario (40)
Astros- Peter Solomon (40+), Freudis Nova (40+), Misael Tamaraz (40)
Mariners- Brandon Williamson (40+), Connor Phillips (40), Jonatan Clase (40)
Phillies- Mickey Moniak (45), Jamari Baylor (40+), Kendall Simmons (35+)

Again, these are hypothetical. I have no idea how any of these teams value the specific players. But you'll notice one thing in common: no trades include significant, blue-chip prospects. All of them include some sort of high-upside or current MLB guy, and none of them would hamstring their team, meaning the team could make the trade and not lose much sleep.

You currently offered: Thompson (40), Ramos (40), Sheets (40). EVEN if that would be the best Story returns, then every other team above would offer lesser packages, and do so excitedly. The White Sox wouldn't even be in the top 5 offers.

If the White Sox offered something like: Kelley (45), Bailey (40+), and Sheets (40), it might get the Rockies attention.

But the original trade, as you gave it, is neither good, nor would it be the "best". Because, again, if that's all it takes, then suddenly, others will feel differently about the "market".

To use an example, if a free agent says, "I demand $100M", then his market is only teams that have money and a need for his spot. But if he says, "I'll play for $5M a year", now, teams will change their plans and find a way to fit him in.

You've made Trevor Story a $5M player. Everyone will try for that if that's what his value really is.


10.) 16 Jul 2021 07:42:08
I'm curious as to how Manny Machado in 2018, an all around better player than Story, coming off a first half where he was worth almost 4 wins with a 155 wRC+, returns a 45+ POS, 2 40 Ps, a 40 POS and a 35+ POS, yet Story undoubtedly gets a 45 POS plus a 40+ POS and a 35+ POS, for example.

By these prospect values, Story's return is only worth $2 million less than Machado's for a full 2 wins less.

If I go out on some wild ride and promote Ramos to a 40+ FV to update FG rankings that haven't been touched in 8 months, I don't think it's that crazy for a guy that's hit some of his upside this year. I could make very reasonably make a strong case for the same promotion for Sheets. I think it's safe to say he's going to produce more than 0.2 fWAR (the mean 40 POS value) over the course of his career. He passes the eye test at the plate and has looked very comfortable thus far. The Rockies could give him an extended look, if anything, as a cheap pre-arb 1B for a team embarking on a long, dark rebuild.

If it's fathomable to promote those two guys (maybe you only want FanGraphs to update their playoff odds, not their prospect lists) and add Thompson, that puts the return's value around $9 million which, in my opinion, bears a much better relationship to the Machado deal given their production.

It's really getting to the splitting hairs point now because teams value all of these guys differently, but I don't think teams are going to start including 45s for Story, especially when keeping their heads above the .500 mark for some of them hasn't been that easy.

I'm willing to say I'm undervaluing Story here even though I love his upside. His road splits are still daunting, however.


11.) 16 Jul 2021 17:26:51
Yeah, when you're offering 3 40-FV prospects for Trevor Story, saying you're "undervaluing" him is a massive understatement.

For what it's worth, there's a lot of skepticism among guys at Fangraphs, most recently, Dan Szymborski, regarding Sheets. Not that Colorado's FO is that forward-thinking, but I doubt he gets them very excited, especially since they have enough corner-infield types that are already MLB-ready or near-MLB ready.

And yes, Story's value isn't that much lower than Machado's. I don't think teams are going to remotely care what Machado netted in a trade FOUR YEARS AGO. Those were two completely different teams with different needs and circumstances.

The Rockies, for whatever reason, haven't been interested in trading Trevor Story. I doubt they'll suddenly change course for a lackadaisical return. They'll just get the extra pick.


12.) 16 Jul 2021 19:02:48
Eh, I don't actually think the Rockies are really "ok" with not moving Story. Ideally they want to best that comp pick's value. I think they are just trying to improve their position as much as possible by giving buyers the impression that they're standing ok with standing pat. I think it's somewhat of a false narrative. Ten again, are we putting a lot of faith in that org to make the mot sound decision possible?

MLB orgs love negotiating through the media these days. They all have their favorite insiders that they like to purposely leak information to, so it's always interesting to try an dissect what is actually going on in reality.

Also, is the large amount of "skepticism" on Sheets just Szymborski literally saying the 3 words "I am skeptical" in a FG chat? because I'm struggling to a. ) figure out how that amounts to "lots of skepticism" or b. ) where exactly the other skepticism is.

And I guess you could say 2018 Baltimore and 2021 Colorado are different in terms of who's running them, but I actually think their situations are quite similar - so, like, the exact opposite of what you said.


13.) 17 Jul 2021 19:10:58
LOL. I said "most recently". There have been other chats where Sheets is brought up with less than excited responses from experts.

Also, the 40 FV that comes from Fangraphs is probably a pretty solid sign that there's a healthy dose of skepticism coming from the Fangraphs camp.

And just because you want to believe that 2018 Baltimore and 2021 Colorado are similar situations doesn't make it true. They are completely different organizations ran by different individuals. They have different organizational values and approaches. To assume that Colorado is seeking the same, better, or worse deal than Manny Machado is nothing more than you trying to justify your yet again putrid, yet laughable, trade idea.

It's really just a bad idea coming from you. And you refuse to just take it and move on.


14.) 18 Jul 2021 01:25:28
The comparison makes sense. I presented a pretty objective example. You have no real response, no insightful critique, but yet it’s putrid and laughable.

To assume Colorado is somewhat comparing a return to Machado makes perfect sense. They’d do really well to get as much as Baltimore got for Machado, it’s probably one of the first trades they bring up for comparison. It’s actually how a lot of contract discussions and trade value discourse is handled.

But by all means, tell me more about how it’s a bad idea, even though I lay out reasons x, y, z of why it’s a comparable situation. Nate doesn’t like the comparison for no specific reason, so we must throw it out the window folks, lol.


15.) 18 Jul 2021 18:12:32
I'm not saying it's a bad comparison, but I'm not saying it's a perfect one, either. The Machado trade was 4 years ago with completely different teams, front office folks, and situations. To suggest that any trade has to use the Manny Machado trade as a basis is pretty silly. It might, but it also might not.

You should probably go look up "objective". Because I'd argue that a player's value is 100% subjective, as was Machado's.

And I'd bet you next to anything that the Rockies don't care one bit what the 2018 Baltimore Orioles got for Manny Machado as they think about trading Trevor Story in 2021.

Once again, the example is subjective, entirely.


 

 

11 Jul 2021 19:37:47
Cubs/Giants

Giants Get:

Kris Bryant 3B/1B/LF/RF
Ryan Tepera RHP

Cubs Get:

Luis Toribio 3B/1B
Tristan Beck RHP
Mauricio Dubon UTL
Trevor McDonald RHP
Keaton Winn RHP

Giants get Bryant who they can plug & play at 4 different positions. His versatility is so valuable. It could also give them a leg up if they were planning on going after him this offseason.

What will be somewhat interesting in trades that they pursue will be that virtually all of their top prospects are underperforming.

The Cubs get a good package of players with Dubon & Beck being able to contribute sooner rather than later. Toribio should provide a nice upside bat.

They'll have an interesting deadline for sure. Bryant and Kimbrel will be gone (plus some of their other pen arms), but Rizzo and Baez I would guess won't. They're not going to want to rebuild, so an on-the-fly retool attempt is likely in the works.

Chi Sox

1.) 11 Jul 2021 22:31:09
If the Giants can get Bryant and Tepera for basically a bunch of 40-40+ FV prospects and an underwhelming Mauricio Dubon, I'd say they should do it.


2.) 11 Jul 2021 22:37:24
"What will be somewhat interesting in trades that they pursue will be that virtually all of their top prospects are underperforming. "

LULZ. You REALLLLLLLLY needed to find something to dig at the Giants, didn't you?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that their extremely regarded farm system is probably not going to be hurt because of a half-season of ho-hum production when most of the prospects missed a full season of baseball.

Now, if we want to talk about hilariously terrible farm systems that will absolutely handicap a team at the trade deadline, we should probably call upon Mr. 2nd Place Executive of the Year.

Dead last. by a fairly significant margin. Colorado has a better farm system than the White Sox. That should tell you a lot.


3.) 12 Jul 2021 15:09:01
It's not really a dig. The Giants do have a really good farm currently. It's just the reality of the situation. It likely won't deter moves, per say, but it can sometimes be a harder sell to a fan base when you trade a franchise cornerstone for a guy with like a 75 wRC+ in A-ball.

FWIW, FanGraphs has Toribio as a 45 FV. I thought about sending Kyle Harrison - maybe that's more likely with a little more of a quality over quantity approach.


4.) 12 Jul 2021 16:59:28
It might slightly affect trades, but I doubt that if the Giants offered a package around, say, Hunter Bishop, that teams with excellent player development departments are going to be scared off because of his 81 wRC+. They'll see way more than we see. They always do.

I don't know how other teams view specific players within the Giants system. I'd imagine, based simply on comments made by evaluators and unnamed front office guys, it's pretty highly praised and they could do a lot of different things at the deadline, if Zaidi wanted.

I CAN tell you that Zaidi isn't trading Harrison for anything short of a controllable starter. Based on dozens of interviews, Zaidi is claiming Harrison to be one of his proudest accomplishments to date. He won't give him up for 3 months of Kris Bryant.

But what this really shows is that the Giants have an incredible amount of prospect depth to work with and they could realistically grab almost any player, if they chose to pay the price, and still have an elite farm system.

This is what Zaidi has done. On top of putting together the team with the best record in baseball with a bunch of guys he acquired through waiver claims and for players named Franklin Van Gurp and Tyler Herb.

It's super impressive.


5.) 13 Jul 2021 02:18:26
A kid with 12 solid starts in low A-Ball is one of Zaidi’s proudest accomplishments? Interesting.


6.) 13 Jul 2021 14:03:21
As per usual, you're out of your element. I'll help explain.

Harrison was consensus late 1st Round material. But he was committed to UCLA and was going to require serious money to be lured away from his college commit. (His advisee was Scott Boras) . Zaidi, who has spoken about this multiple times, talks about how the Giants knew of Harrison's signability issues and were being told that no one was giving him the money he was asking (2.5M), so he'd likely go to UCLA and enter the draft in a few years.

Zaidi knew the asking price before the draft and said that they knew they could sign Harrison in the third, and signed the other draftees slightly below slot value in order to do so.

He got a 45+ FV high school arm in the third round of a draft, and planned to do so from the start of the draft.

For a guy who has been universally praised for his drafting abilities, Zaidi brags about this move quite a bit in various podcast interviews.


7.) 13 Jul 2021 14:12:43
To put it more bluntly, the Giants didn't go underslot on 3 of their first 4 picks to give Kyle Harrison a 1.7M over-slot bonus just to trade him away for 3 months of Kris Bryant.


8.) 13 Jul 2021 18:52:06
That is done every year by virtually every team. Hahn did it yesterday to get Tanner McDougal in the 5th round and last year to get Jared Kelley in the 2nd. It's not some unique strategy.


9.) 13 Jul 2021 19:23:22
I never claimed it was a unique strategy. I said it was a player that Zaidi has been extremely proud of securing in the draft.

Zaidi probably references Harrison more than any prospect when talking about his farm system. He's not trading Harrison away for Kris Bryant. That much is clear.

But it sure is nice to see one of our teams both has a winning record AND a farm system with players other teams will want.


10.) 13 Jul 2021 19:33:17
Speaking of unique, Guyyyyth, can you believe that Rick Hahn traded away his really good players for other really good players? Can you believe he worked to build a core of solid players?

Guys, did you know that Rick Hahn invented the idea of pre-arb extensions? It certainly never happened before. Please don't look up Matt Cain or Madison Bumgarner, they are irrelevant here. RICK HAHN IS SO UNIQUE GUYS.

And guys, did you know Rick Hahn invented baseball?

Again, I'm not even remotely pretending that Farhan Zaidi did something unique. I'm just suggesting that Zaidi worked overtime to get a guy he ALMOST took in the first round, and instead took 3 players ahead of him.

You suggested that the Giants would trade Harrison. I said Zaidi has cited him as one of his biggest accomplishments. You scoffed at it, so I explained it.

Meanwhile, Harrison has higher value than literally any prospect the White Sox currently have. It's kind of hilarious when you think about how much you try and trash Zaidi around here.


11.) 14 Jul 2021 04:17:42
You're picking the fight, so here you go.

Getting franchise cornerstones for ADAM EATON and JOSE QUINTANA is not ordinary! These were/ are not "really good players" after leaving the White Sox. He moved them at max value before they depreciated rapidly. GMs screw this up every year.

Also, I'm really sorry the top-4 White Sox prospects graduated this year and are all excelling in the bigs. I'm fairly optimistic they'll be able to replenish some good prospects at the top here even though they likely won't be picking at the top of the draft for the foreseeable future. They've already gotten some solid production from some mid-tier guys at the big league level this year.

Maybe it's hard for you to recognize what Rick Hahn has done this year from way out on the west coast, but it pretty crazy to realize that they still have the best record in the AL with the best pitching staff in baseball all things considered - i. e. the most WAR lost of any AL team this year. Hahn had a fantastic off-season sans Eaton, but even then he has had 4 or 5 good RF options to pick up the slack.

They'll be adding Eloy Jimenez, Luis Robert and a trade acquisition bat to a lineup that is already 4th in baseball in fWAR. Sheeesh.

And yeah, you (who picked them to finish sub-.500), me and pretty much the entire rest of the baseball community were wrong about San Fran. I'll hand up admit I was wrong there. I never doubted Farhan as a good GM, but I didn't think he had anywhere near the talent necessary to have the best record in baseball, and again, neither did you.

I never "trashed" Zaidi either. Find me anywhere saying he isn't a good GM. You held up him up as an all-time great because of a few good waiver claims. I said pump the brakes because he hasn't built a solid core yet to really compete for the AL West perennially. To his credit, he hadn't had the opportunity to do so and what he and the rest of his staff have gotten out of their club this year is extremely impressive.

But yeah, shame on me for not forecasting the mid-30s career resurgences of Posey, Crawford and Longoria.

Enjoy the mid-July victory lap I guess?


12.) 14 Jul 2021 16:13:07
"Enjoy the mid-July victory lap" is hilariously ironic for someone praising his White Sox for winning one playoff game in 2020. but did you know they were breaking records left and right?

"But yeah, shame on me for not forecasting the mid-30s career resurgences of Posey, Crawford and Longoria. "

LOL again. If you were paying attention, or had read literally any conversation with players since Spring Training of 2020, you'd notice that the Giants players have spoken ad nauseum about the changes made by the coaching staff. The resurgence wasn't necessarily "predictable", but it's not the least bit surprising for those who have been paying attention. Trust me, I'm not accusing you of doing that.

"Maybe it's hard for you to recognize what Rick Hahn has done this year from way out on the west coast"

LMAO, I live in Iowa. We get White Sox highlights on the evening news. I;m aware of how the White Sox are doing. It's impressive, until you see their record and run differential against .500 teams. You understand they have the worst record against .500 teams of any contender, right? Right? I'm guessing you're blissfully unaware of this tough reality. I'll keep you in my prayers as you cope with it.

"I said pump the brakes because he hasn't built a solid core yet to really compete for the AL West perennially. "

No, you said they were years away and did nothing but mock me when I cited Darin Ruf as a legitimate example for what the Giants were doing. Ruf would legitimately be the White Sox best offensive player right now.

I tried to tell you that what Zaidi was doing was legit. You thought you could get away with mocking it. So I'm rightly calling you out.

Yes, I'm equally surprised. The Giants are MUCH better than even I thought they'd be. But to think, he's doing it with placeholders, waiting for guys like Luciano, Bart, Ramos, Bishop, Matos, Harrison, Corry, Hjelle, etc. to make their way up and add more depth.

Turns out, Dominic, you don't need a young "core" to win baseball games. Yes, believe it or not, you can win games outside of the way Rick "The Messiah" Hahn invented.

We don't know how any of this will play out. Based on what we've seen however, it's probably a little better odds the Giants, who have a .585 record (the equivalent of the Rays) against .500 teams will win a playoff series over the team with a .400 record (equivalent to the Royals) .

Just come out and say that you weren't just wrong in your prediction, but that your mockery of my points, all of which can be seen in WHY the Giants are as good as they are was out-of-line and made you look like a fool.

Do that and I'll drop it.


13.) 14 Jul 2021 17:17:49
You literally picked the Giants to finish 80-82, lol. I had them right around .500 or somewhere in the 75 to 80-win range. You were just as wrong as I was on them for this season, quite clearly.

I can assure you that for those in the baseball community who don't claim to be know-it-alls, every one of us is extremely surprised with Longoria, Posey and Crawford. Saying that you aren't is laughable, even for the biggest Giants fans out there.

"It's impressive, until you see their record and run differential against .500 teams. You understand they have the worst record against .500 teams of any contender, right? "

You understand they've played a big chunk of games this year with - yes 2, position players of their projected opening day starting 9, right? There's a reason why FanGraphs gives the Sox an 11.5% chance to win the World Series and the Giants are waaaaaay down at 2.3%, less than the YANKEES hahaha. Plus they project the Giants ROS win% at .489 with the Sox at .538.

The Sox getting their full lineup back with their pitching staff is quite frankly a juggernaut as shown by the projections, but I told you this would happen over the winter!

Oh, and Darin Ruf is a weak-side platoon bench piece. He wouldn't be remotely close to the Sox best hitter lmaoooo. He's a nice player, but seriously, drop it with him.

The Sox are coming to Dyersville next month! Show them some respect, fellow Iowan!


14.) 14 Jul 2021 18:59:03
You can act surprised until you connect a couple of dots. Guys like Donnie Ecker have spoken about their approach to hitting and how they've been working on players since they took over in 2020. As you watch guys like Crawford, Longoria, or Posey, it's no longer surprising.

I'm not saying I projected it. No one did. But as I recall the interviews and then see it played out in person, it's not the least bit surprising. The guys at Fangraphs and The Athletic have spent time connecting those same dots. It's why the Giants are doing so well: coaching.

Why would I drop it with Ruf? He's hitting 205 wwRC+ vs lefties, but a formidable 118 wRC+ against righties. For what it's worth, he has more at bats against RHP than he does against LHP. If we went with only his RH v RH plate appearances, his wRC+ is still third on the White Sox.

For a "weak side platoon", his 1.5 WAR is higher than the everyday 1B and defending MVP Jose Abreu's 1.2 WAR. Over 650 PAs, Ruf's WAR would be 6.8, Abreu's? 2.2. Seriously. The MVP vs. "weak side platoon bench piece". The Giants are paying 1.25M for that production, the White Sox are paying 17M for theirs. That's over 50x the value.

At this point, it's sour grapes for you. You were REALLY confident in your mockery of the Darin Ruf point, and yet, here you are AGAIN. Dead wrong about it. You can't handle being hilariously wrong about it, so I'm making sure I keep bringing it up.

I eagerly await how you'll contradict yourself to try and prove me wrong LOL.


15.) 14 Jul 2021 19:20:21
As far as the rest of the season goes, yes, the White Sox got their tough games out of the way. To the tune of a .400 record against real baseball teams. We've established this, Geronimo.

I do find it funny that you're like, "no one saw this coming, not even you or any experts" as it comes to the Giants. But NOW, suddenly, in mid-July, you're so confident about it all. Now, the Giants' chances are slim.

And you understand those FG ROS rankings are based on what Fangraphs themselves acknowledge as pre-season and seldom-updated projections, right? You act like we're not taking into account the White Sox' lack of Jimenez or Robert. YOU'RE not taking into account the injuries to Belt, La Stella, Longoria, or others. ALl guys who the Giants expect back at different points.

It also doesn't account for another really pesky detail: the Giants could make several significant trades, the White Sox, because of their terrible farm system, cannot. So the rankings are based on what the Giants and White Sox have now, on July 14th.

But let's say it is correct. The Giants go .490 the remainder of the season. They win 93 games and make the playoffs with 92% odds. You still understand how hilariously wrong that makes you, right?

Yes, I projected them to go 79-83. YOU claimed that they weren't even going to contend, and that the Front Office saying so was "lip service. " You said they have a very, very long ways to go" and that they were a "mediocre-at-best" team.

The Giants, who according to you, were "mediocre" currently stand to win the exact same amount of games as the team you crowned as "up there with the Dodgers. "

There's no getting around any of this for you. The Giants are for real, and they can add just about whoever they want if they are willing to pay the price. The White Sox REALLY need Jimenez and Robert to both be healthy and productive, because, as I said, no one is giving up legit talent for Jared Kelley.


16.) 14 Jul 2021 22:55:54
"Yes, I projected them to go 79-83. YOU claimed that they weren't even going to contend"

Going 79-83 and not contending is, well, the same thing. I would also call it "mediocre-at-best". So when they win 92-games, you too will just as wrong as I and there rest of the nation was.

Soooo, contradiction?

The good thing about the White Sox is that they don't need to make significant trades because the prospects they would trade for a "significant piece" have graduated from "prospect-um" and are good enough on their own. It's fantastic. A 2B upgrade here (only because their young, 115 wRC+ guy sustained a season-ending injury) and a middle reliever there and they are ready to roll.

Now ask yourself, would you trade Darin Ruf for Jose Abreu because of a good 250 PA sample from Ruf, or roll with a .291/ .349/ .515 with a .364 wOBA and a 132 wRC+ career slash over 4524 PAs? Think hard.

And I love your scaling logic here. So really, all the Giants need to do is give Ruf 650 PAs and they have a 7-win player on their hands! Lmao, not quite how that works bud. But again, Ruf is a *nice* player for just over a mil. I don't have any problem with him. He's a really good piece to have.

"The White Sox REALLY need Jimenez and Robert to both be healthy and productive"

Wellll I mean that would be optimal, but then again, they're the best team in the AL without them sooooo.

And it's not me thinking the Giants' chances are slim, it's FanGraphs' algorithm.


17.) 15 Jul 2021 13:13:57
No, I wouldn't trade a guy who has been over 50 times as valuable as the other guy. I'd reckon Rick Hahn wouldn't, either.

That Darin Ruf has higher WAR, higher wRC+ from both sides of the plate, along with a myriad of other better rate stats shows just how incredibly valuable this "weak side platoon depth" truly is. And the fact that he's doing it all the while the Giants are sans their own excellent 1B is even more impressive.

His WAR/ 650 is simply to show what kind of production he's giving. He's got an identical WAR to Abreu, despite 2.5 times less plate appearances.

And if you'd prefer traditional stats, consider this. Over 650 PAs, here would be their totals, at the current rate:

Abreu- .253/ .786 OPS, 26 HR, 82 R, 120 RBI
Ruf- .267/ .959 OPS, 40 HR, 118 R, 100 RBI

So, I guess Abreu puts up more RBIs at the rate they are going?

If you want to argue that Darin Ruf is "weak side platoon depth", fine. But all it does is show exactly HOW MUCH depth the Giants currently have.


18.) 15 Jul 2021 13:22:46
As far as the ROS stuff. My comments about Jimenez and Robert have to do with them in the playoffs. No one cares that the White Sox beat up on the Orioles and Royals and Tigers without them.

They are .400 in games that matter. That's 2 out of 5 in an ALDS series, or losing the series, for those keeping track at home. Will Jimenez and Robert assist that? Of course, but without them, we've seen what the "Best team in the AL" does. Perhaps that's an indictment on the entire AL? I don't know.

"And it's not me thinking the Giants' chances are slim, it's FanGraphs' algorithm. "

Riiiiight. Trust me, I'm not accusing you of being able to develop your own unbiased algorithm. If it was you, the White Sox would have won 135 games.

The criticism to the algorithm is simply that it can't factor in things that are coming up. Again, it can't take into account the Giants getting back Longoria, La Stella, and Belt at some time in the second half. Just like it can't factor in the White Sox getting Jimenez or Robert back.

So that .490 ROS record is based on the existing roster, right now. Fangraphs themselves would acknowledge this. They can't predict the future and can't factor into things not yet known. This isn't that difficult for most people. I'll give a handicap to White Sox fans, since they are new to this.

And bear in mind, the Fangraphs "trusty algorithm" ALSO had the Giants as a mid-70 win team. So perhaps we shouldn't put significant stock into what they predict? Again, I find it funny that you were so confident in your criticism, and now, still being wrong, you're like, "well, NOW, now is the time I'll be correct! "

Maybe just start sitting these out.


19.) 15 Jul 2021 16:12:23
Yes, my point with Ruf is that you can take his best 250 PA stretch while not grabbing Abreu's best and say "see, Ruf is really good, his numbers are better than Abreu's! ", as if I'm arguing for Abreu's greatness in 2021. He's been playing hurt pretty much all season and has still thrown up a 117 wRC+, but that's not the point.

Then you scale by 650 PAs which is something Abreu regularly does and something Ruf has never gotten close to state-side and act like that is proving something. Ruf has been really good for SF because they have put him in positions to succeed i. e. not as an everyday guy, lots of pinch hit ABs, etc. Give him 650 PAs and he's not putting up a 7-win season; I can guarantee it. Herein lies your logical fallacy.

I could similarly argue that if the Sox simply threw Liam Hendriks 200 innings, he'd amass 320 Ks, 20 BBs with a 2.75 ERA and 2.66 FIP. But they don't because that's not how it works and why just multiplying stats over a PA or IP "full season" value is not a good way to show value. Hendricks is really good in his role and so is Ruf.

Ruf is a really good player to have; a piece of the puzzle. You are insinuating that Zaidi has uncovered a 7-win talent. It's just not the case. He's had a really good 243 PAs, like I said and Zaidi should be commended for the nice pickup. Has he been just as valuable as Abreu over this season's first half according to fWAR? Yes. Is he the more valuable player overall in the grand scheme of things? Absolutely not. So in reality, your effort to promote Ruf's value was to put him up against an iron horse of a player who hasn't played his best over his last 83 games. It's not telling the story you think it is.

It's not adding context to Ruf's performance either; it's a convenient selection bias and a misleading scaling tactic.


20.) 15 Jul 2021 21:23:59
"So in reality, your effort to promote Ruf's value was to put him up against an iron horse of a player who hasn't played his best over his last 83 games. It's not telling the story you think it is. "

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

So wait, because the Giants happened to put 3 damn good 1B on the same roster, thereby getting to employ them where they can extract maximum value, he's suddenly less than the guy who is struggling, mostly because his award-winning executive* (*award given by an out-of-print magazine who resorts to Bleacher Report writing) couldn't put depth behind him?

Let's put this way. Jose "full time iron horse" Abreu is working twice as much as Darin "weak-side platoon bench piece" Ruf and producing the exact same amount.

If we both worked the same job, and you earned the company $1,000 after 10 hours of work, but I produced $1,000 after just 4, who is getting the promotion? If the boss has any wits about him, I will. He won't care that I only worked 4 hours and handed over my work to someone else.

What you're telling me is a) Jose Abreu isn't the "iron man" you thought he was. Heck, if nothing else, his 2021 numbers, which are in line with his numbers from 2018-19, show that 2020 was an aberration, and not the "full story" and b) that perhaps the White Sox should find 1B depth to help mitigate for Abreu's faults.

I'll put it one more way: Jose Abreu has been given 2.5x more chances, and the most he could do was put up the same production of Darin Ruf.

The difference here is that Ruf's boss employs him where he'll succeed. Abreu's? Not as much.

Maybe that's less an indictment on Darin Ruf's value and more on the White Sox ability to extract value out of their players.


21.) 15 Jul 2021 21:39:48
If we value 1 WAR at 8M, here are the surplus values:

Jose Abreu: 1.2 WAR (x8M) = 9.6M. Minus his 2021 AAV salary (16.7M) . His value is -7.1M

Darin Ruf- 1.5 WAR (x8M) = 12M. Minus his 2021 salary (1.3M) . His value is 10.7M. For the guy who went on an on and on about surplus value, you seem to ignore it when it's inconvenient.

Point is, Edward, Darin Ruf is valuable to the Giants. Because his manager and GM know how to get the most out of him. They know when to use him and when to not use him. And they've put tremendously talented players around him to get great production when he's not useful.

Jose Abreu is not valuable to his team right now. And the White Sox have no choice but to use him at 1B, every night. They don't do this because he's insanely valuable. He's not. he's a full-timer putting up similar numbers to part-timers. They do it because they legitimately have no depth to put behind him. They don't have a choice but to use Abreu.

I'd bet you almost everything I have, if the White Sox had a "weak-side platoon bench piece" like Darin Ruf to help Abreu, Abreu wouldn't be getting as many PAs each year.

The Giants are forward-thinking. The White Sox hire Tony La Russa.
Don't fault Darin Ruf for that.


22.) 16 Jul 2021 07:01:58
Again, you're conveniently pulling Ruf's best career numbers while not doing the same for Abreu. It doesn't make sense. Why don't we compare Abreu's 2020 to Ruf's 2015 or 2016? Want to do a little project and scale the up for me? Didn't think so.

The reason I can say that is I never said Abreu's 1st half stretch was better than Ruf's, nor did I say that Abreu has been more valuable over the 1st half than Ruf. I never even brought up Abreu as deserving any kind of credit for his 2021 production. This is all in an effort by you to prove the point that Ruf is in fact a good player, a point I have NEVER DISPUTED lol. What is even going on?

We've established that Ruf has had a very nice 143 PA stretch this year and Abreu has been *only* 17% above average at the plate, but that Abreu is the overall better player in the grand scheme. Despite their 2021 first half production, no one on the face of the earth would take Ruf over Abreu in the long run (or even probably for this year's 2nd half), and that's what really matters.

Oh yeah, and ROS? THE BAT X has Ruf putting up a 112 wRC+ over just 81 PAs. Abreu? 130 wRC+ over 292 PAs.

How about Steamer? A generous 186 PA slate with a .238/ .318/ .421 slash with a .320 wOBA, 104 wRC+ and a 0.4 WAR, AKA what Ruf's production would likely look like as an every day guy.

For Abreu it's .268/ .328/ .487 with a .347 wOBA, 122 wRC+ and a 1.1 WAR.

Hopefully that gives you a little perspective.


23.) 16 Jul 2021 07:09:27
Hold on.

"Jose Abreu is not valuable to his team right now. And the White Sox have no choice but to use him at 1B, every night. They don't do this because he's insanely valuable. He's not. he's a full-timer putting up similar numbers to part-timers. They do it because they legitimately have no depth to put behind him. They don't have a choice but to use Abreu. "

This, even for you, is so laughably bad that it almost hurts.

Abreu is a career .291/ .349/ .515 hitter with a .364 wOBA and a 132 wRC+ with 21.6 fWAR over more than 4500 PAs.

Ruf is at .247/ .330/ .456 with a .340 wOBA and a 115 wRC+ with 2.6 fWAR over 1026 PAs

Like, c'mon. The White Sox "have no choice but to use Abreu"?

Gooooooooootcha.

The White Sox have Andrew Vaughn (112 wRC+), Gavin Sheets (127 wRC+, 120 in AAA), Jake Burger (177 wRC+, 155 in AAA), Jake Lamb (113 wRC+) and heck, even Yasmani Grandal (134 wRC+) who can all play 1B behind Abreu. This, Nate, is exactly what depth looks like. Just a brutal take there too. Is anyone marking these down?

Abreu plays because he's a very good player. He was literally the MVP last year, lol. A half season doesn't just make that fact vanish. The guy wears 97 MPH fastballs off the knee cap and plays the next day, an absolute warrior who doesn't get near the credit he deserves.

You act like me calling Ruf a "weak side bench piece" is some kind of insult. It's literally the role he's deployed in, lol.

Trust me, if you could one day meet Darin Ruf, I think he'd really appreciate your affinity for him.


24.) 16 Jul 2021 18:00:57
LOL. For someone who was mad because the stats don't tell the full story, you sure seemed to pick stats that don't tell the full story, didn't you?

Darin Ruf was a below-average 1B who was cast-off by MLB teams until figuring out his swing and approach in the KBO, then came back to the states and became valuable.

As for Abreu, I literally don't care what he did for a shortened-season. A simple look at his career numbers suggests that 2020 was a massive FLUKE. An ABERRATION.

2018- 114 wRC+, .337 wOBA
2019- 116 wRC+, .344 wOBA
2020- 166 wRC+, .411 wOBA
2021- 117 wRC+, .339 wOBA

Yeah, 3 of 4 seasons being eerily consistent pretty much proves that Abreu's 2020 season was a complete fluke.

Meanwhile, let's check in on Darin Ruf. Unlike most KBO guys, Ruf hasn't seen a decrease in his state-side numbers.

2017 (KBO) - 141 wRC+, .414 wOBA
2018 (KBO) - 153 wRC+, .433 wOBA
2019 (KBO) - 149 wRC+, .409 wOBA
2020 (MLB) - 140 wRC+, .379 wOBA
2021 (MLB) - 158 wRC+, .404 wOBA

Again, you can dismiss them for being KBO numbers, but how frequent do we see guys mashing in KBO and continue to do so in the majors? Almost never.

You keep writing his numbers off simply because he's a "platoon guy", when in reality, Abreu should probably be a platoon guy as well. 107 wRC+ against righties? Yeah, Jose Abreu is a platoon guy playing full time LOLOLOL.

Let's check in on those 2021 splits:

Ruf:
vs. LHP- 205 wRC+
vs. RHP- 118 wRC+

Abreu
vs. LHP- 145 wRC+
vs. RHP- 107 wRC+

Yes, the "weak side platoon player" has better numbers from both sides of the plate than the "full time MVP".

Now, let's check in with the Giants other 1B options vs. RHP:

Belt- 131 wRC+
Wade- 146 wRC+

Yeah, there's literally zero reason for the Giants to employ their guy who is above average vs. right-handed pitching when they've got guys who have nearly elite numbers against them.

That you pretend this is some "knock" on Darin Ruf. that somehow, his "value" is less because the Giants have multiple excellent pieces at 1B is hilarious.

Darin Ruf, by legitimately every stat possible in 2021, is the better 1B than Jose Abreu. This isn't even remotely arguable.

Sorry that this FACT bothers you. I guess you can go get off to that MVP trophy Abreu won. I hear it's pretty shiny. Is the shine distracting you from the truth I'm presenting?

I guess if you need a minute or two to cope with this new reality, you can take it. Go outside. Punch a few things. Scream into the abyss. Gather yourself. After enough time, I firmly believe that you'll come back and realize that Darin Ruf is, by every possible account, the better 1B in 2021.

In 2020, Jose Abreu was the better 1B. Prior to 2020, Abreu was the better 1B.

In 2021, things have changed. It's okay. Things change. It's easier when you accept the change instead of fighting it. Just embrace it, Hubert. Darin Ruf is the better 1B.

Don't come responding until you're ready to live in the real world instead of White Sox fandom world.

Have a lovely day.


25.) 16 Jul 2021 19:06:37
"As for Abreu, I literally don't care what he did for a shortened-season. "

Then,

"Here's why Darin Ruf is better than Jose Abreu through 2021's first half"

Makes perfect sense.


26.) 16 Jul 2021 19:10:52
Also, you conveniently left out the first 4 years of Abreu's career where he was a 139 wRC+ hitter and only missed a total of 34 games.

Maybe you just forgot.


27.) 17 Jul 2021 19:14:49
Why do I care about what Jose Abreu did 4 years ago when we're talking about whose more valuable in 2021? Why is that remotely relevant?

In 2017, yes, Jose Abreu was more valuable than Darin Ruf. In 2020, yes, Jose Abreu was more valuable than Darin Ruf.

In 2021, Jose Abreu is not more valuable, or even as good, as Darin Ruf. This isn't my opinion. It's not "bias". The numbers literally tell us this is true.

And you just don't want to acknowledge it, mostly because you REFUSE to accept that you were wrong and admit that I'm 100% right on this.


28.) 17 Jul 2021 19:28:00
Just as another example to show how bad your writing Ruf off because he's a "platoon player", think of it this way.

If you have two restaurants, Company #1 serves only hamburgers, nothing else. They made 1 Billion dollars last quarter.

Company #2 serves a full menu and tons of options, but only made $500M last quarter.

You're trying to convince everyone and yourself that Company #2 is better because they do more, even though they make less. But in reality, no one cares that Company #2 makes a huge menu when most of the items are just average.

The Giants don't need Darin Ruf to make a bunch of items (although, as I've PROVEN, he's certainly capable) . They need him to be the Hamburger guy. If they want a Chicken Patty guy, they have someone else to fill that role.

The Giants are getting 3 times more production out of platoon 1B than the White Sox are out of their "reigning MVP" because they aren't asking Hamburger guys to be Chicken Patty guys, and they aren't asking Chicken Patty guys to be Hamburger Guys.

Maybe the White Sox should consider platooning Abreu. Perhaps they'd be better than 16-25 vs. decent baseball teams.


29.) 18 Jul 2021 01:31:50
The only problem with your comparison is that company 2 has made billions more over their existence while company 1 has ONLY done better than company 2 over a small 3 month stretch

Company 2 is the better company and the one you invest in long term, not the company with just a better short term streak.

Aaaannnnd as I type this Abreu fittingly pumps a ball 425 feet for a homer as the Sox extend their lead to 9-0 over the Astros ;)


30.) 18 Jul 2021 01:37:54
And for the 1millionth time, I’ve acknowledged that Darin Ruf is a a valuable player for the 2021 San Francisco Giants and a good find by Zaidi. Not sure what else you’re looking for. He isn’t a better player than Abreu even after having a better 1st half. Your argument here has never made a lick of sense. It’s really the end of the story.


31.) 18 Jul 2021 18:25:38
In 2021, he's OBJECTIVELY a better player than Jose Abreu. You won't concede the point, but then again, no one, literally no one, is accusing you of being reasonable.

Also, your rebuttal to the analogy was bad (or in your case, par for the course) . In this case, literally zero people care what Jose Abreu did prior to 2021. No one, except you.

What's also funny is that you're trying to sell Jose Abreu by his 2020 performance, and not his 2018 or 2019 performance, which, interestingly, mirrors his current performance. He had a season of incredible production, but that was a flash in the pan.

Meanwhile, Darin Ruf has been remarkably consistent for several seasons now, stretching even in the KBO (again, his ability to keep his KBO and MLB numbers the same is impressive) . You're actually buying a player who has a) shown his consistency, recently, and b) isn't revealing it's a massive, unbelievable fluke (unlike his competitor) .

You love to dismiss Ruf's 3-month stretch, but you desperately need Jose Abreu's huge 3-month stretch to keep your argument going.

Once again, the rules don't apply when they start hurting the White Sox.

Seriously, give it up.


32.) 18 Jul 2021 20:11:51
Right — we have the throw Abreu’s first 4 seasons out the window yet Ruf’s friggin KBO numbers are fair game. Lmao c'mon dude. Abreu was STILL 15-20 percent above average in his “down” years. That’s when you know you’re a damn good player. KBO is slightly better than AAA, it’s not the same as MLB at all.

Abreu — better career player and project better rest of career player, Ruf — objectively better so far in 2021. I haven’t dismissed Ruf’s numbers at all but keep pushing that for your own sanity.

Understand now? It’s really not that hard.

You say no one cares about Abreu’s career when in reality, a lot more do that Ruf’s 2021.


33.) 19 Jul 2021 21:12:55
Yes, because both of the last 4 years ACTUALLY DEFINE both players.

The numbers are available. Ruf's last 4 seasons are remarkably consistent.

Abreu's numbers, minus one outlier of a shortened-season, are remarkably consistent. The player Abreu was in 2018 and 2019--mediocre, slightly above average 1B--is the same player he's looking to be in 2021.

As for KBO, I've mentioned, TWICE, that the KBO are bad comparisons, which makes it all the more impressive that Darin Ruf is keeping pace with him. It should actually make us wonder, did the resurgence happen in Korea, or in San Francisco?

And no, in 2021, for the millionth flipping time, Abreu is not the better player. He SHOULD have higher numbers, simply because he plays 2.5x more than Darin Ruf, and yet, Ruf is outpacing him in almost every single stat, minus RBI.

Jose Abreu after 369 PAs - 1.4 WAR
Darin Ruf after 149 PAs- 1.6 WAR

Darin Ruf is producing at a rate of 286% greater than Jose Abreu. There's literally no objective way in which you can deny this reality, or try to pretend that, somehow, Jose Abreu is still, right now, the better player. He's literally not.

And I don't care about Jose Abreu's career when we're talking about 2021 production. It's 100% irrelevant to the conversation surrounding 2021.

If you used to have $1M in your account, but now, it's only 250K, but I have 750K, but never had a million, I still have more money than you. I'm CURRENTLY doing better than you. Why would anyone care that you once were better?

We're not talking about Darin Ruf vs. Jose Abreu in 2018. We're not even talking about Ruf vs. Abreu in 2023.

We're talking Ruf vs. Abreu in 2021. And OBJECTIVELY, meaning not based around feelings but actual facts, Darin Ruf is the better 1B right now, by a margin of almost 300% (3x) .

The fact that you continue to try and act like this isn't the case simply proves how insane unreasonable you truly are.

Then again, if I'm expecting the guy who thought he could get a legitimately good player for Jonathan Stiever, I'm probably setting my expectations a little too high.

Someone could project that the White Sox win 175 games in a season, and you'd defend it like the massive homer you truly are. It's actually adorable.


34.) 19 Jul 2021 23:27:39
Nate -- Darin Ruf has only produced better than Jose Abreu from April 2021 to July 2021. In every other non-ultra-granular time frame in their existences, Abreu has been better. Moving forward, even in for the rest of 2021, not one projection system likes Ruf more. In the grand scheme of player evaluation, this matters much more that a 3-month stretch.

When determining how good of a baseball player one is at a current time, are you telling me you ONLY consider their last 140 PAs? That's insane. Like, Jose Abreu is a better baseball player than Darin Ruf, even though Ruf has been .2 WAR better than Abreu this year. This is common knowledge. You can't just assume Ruf would produce the same WAR as Abreu given the same number of ABs because he's literally never shown the capability to do that. It's just not how it works. Ruf is not, nor will he ever be, a 7-win talent, and you're acting like he is.

Again, it's like me insinuating that Liam Hendriks would be a 7-win player if La Russa only pitched him 200 innings. It's not realistic.

I guess Ruf is also better overall than Yelich, Rizzo, and Stanton too bc of this 3.5 month stretch?

I still don't understand what continuously saying that "Ruf has been better than Abreu so far in 2021" does for any point? What IS the point? What does it justify Ruf as given I've already called him a good player?


35.) 20 Jul 2021 13:57:46
"Darin Ruf has only produced better than Jose Abreu from April 2021 to July 2021."

Coincidentally, the time frame for my "Darin Ruf is better" argument is is April 2021 to July 2021.

"When determining how good of a baseball player one is at a current time, are you telling me you ONLY consider their last 140 PAs? "

I mean, we COULD realistically do that. But considering that Abreu has less WAR in over 350 PAs than Ruf does in 150, I don't think it'd help your argument.

"Like, Jose Abreu is a better baseball player than Darin Ruf, even though Ruf has been .2 WAR better than Abreu this year. This is common knowledge. "

In what measurable way? How? Defend it beyond being a sloberry, annoying White Sox homer. Give me statistical justification for saying the guy who has been less productive over 350 PA than the guy over 150 is somehow better.

You keep saying he's better, but you give zero evidence of this claim. Again, we're talking 2021. Not 2020 (Abreu's FLUKE season), or even 2017. Keep it to 2021 and justify it. I've went above and beyond explaining why I believe Ruf is better. You just say "bUt MuH wHiTe SoX! "

Defend it.

"You can't just assume Ruf would produce the same WAR as Abreu given the same number of ABs because he's literally never shown the capability to do that. It's just not how it works. Ruf is not, nor will he ever be, a 7-win talent, and you're acting like he is. "

I didn't say Ruf was 7-WAR talent. I said that if we equalize their PAs to a similar number, Ruf's WAR is at a rate of 6.8 WAR (now 6.5). It's a pretty common practice, including ZiPS, which is what's used in those handy ROS projections you cited. It's not manipulative. We're literally just discussing the rate of production.

If you wish, we can literally just look at their current numbers, as I've relentlessly focused on. Darin Ruf is a better player, OBJECTIVELY, STATISTICALLY, FACTUALLY, LITERALLY than Jose Abreu, in 40% of the opportunities.

For someone who spent such time arrogantly defending "surplus value" on this site, THIS is value. Let's recap:

The Giants, in 2021, currently, are getting 1.5 WAR out of Darin Ruf, as a part-time, platoon first baseman. They are paying 1.25M for that production.

The White Sox, in 2021, CURRENTLY, are getting 1.5 WAR out of Abreu (hey look, Abreu finally caught up. It only took him 250% more time! ) as a full time first baseman. They are paying him $17M for this production.

If you could get 1.5 WAR, would you rather pay 1.5M or 17M? Without a thought, you'd pick Darin Ruf. EVERY GM would right now. Especially considering that Ruf allows you to find a LHH 1B, like the Giants currently have, who is putting up 0.7 WAR at the league minimum.

So, to bring it all together, Darin Ruf is the better 1B STATISTICALLY. He's the better 1B in terms of VALUE. He's the better 1B in terms of PAYROLL IMPLICATIONS.

But yeah, keep acting like Abreu is better simply because ZiPS projects him better going forward. FWIW, that comment shows you literally don't even care about how ZiPS works. Szymborski gets criticized for this all the time, and every time, his defense is that there's not enough history for the projections to give someone like Ruf the edge. It'll NATURALLY favor Jose Abreu, because that's how projection systems work.

And again, your own projection, Fangraph's own projections, shoot, even my own projections, really seemed to be WAYYYYYYY off on the 2021 Giants.

I'm really unsure why you're acting so confident that THIS TIME you'll be right.


36.) 20 Jul 2021 14:32:32
Also, if your argument that Jose Abreu is better in 2021, because of PROJECTIONS and not, I don't know, actual production, then it's clear that you're just trying to latch on to anything you can to make you sound right.

Again, we're talking the same projections that put the Giants around 75 wins and couldn't project a single thing that the Giants did (by your own admission) . So as I've pressed, why such dogged faith in them now?

If they failed so massively to project what the Giants would do April to July, why are you so dang sure they'll be able to accurately do so from August to October?

Again, it's just further proof you're trying to latch onto ANYTHING you can find to make sure you sound right.

So let's end this on two points:

1. Your brain goes into overdrive at the idea that someone thinks someone is better than a White Sox player. I've proven this relentlessly. You couldn't handle me criticizing Carson Fulmer and Cliff Politte (! ) on this site. LOLOLOLOL.

You legitimately can't handle it when someone doesn't LOVVVVVEEEE the White Sox as much as you.

2. You'll legitimately say anything. ANYTHING to help you feel and sound correct. Mind you, it doesn't have to be correct. Again, you couldn't actually stand any ground on your claim that Abreu is better in 2021 than Darin Ruf, so you lazily resorted to citing projection systems.

It's okay to grow from others, Kenneth. It really is. You can learn and adapt. I've even learned and adapted from things YOU said on here. For example, I've changed my view on how teams value players, in large part because of our conversation on this site.

I learned to focus more on Rick Hahn's international signings, especially those out of Cuba, because of things you said.

It is possible, and acceptable, to show a bit of humility and recognize when you're wrong. Jose Abreu can be worse than Darin Ruf and it doesn't make you a bad person. I might razz you a bit for it.

But if you want to continue to arrogantly keep building this stupid house of cards you're trying to build, then you're only going to become bitter when it all crashes down on you. You've built a persona of insulting and being arrogant towards people who don't view the White Sox the same way you do on this website. And now that someone spent WAYYYY more time proving his points, you have an option:

Learn from it or continue to arrogantly refuse to accept facts that don't put your favorite team in the best light.

It's more than okay to pick the first option. In fact, for your own sake, I'd personally recommend it.


37.) 21 Jul 2021 03:11:29
It's now been 5 or 6 times in this thread where I've conceded that Darin Ruf's 2021 season has (had) been better than Abreu. I've actually said it so many times that since we've started, Abreu has closed the fWAR gap with Ruf after a 165 wRC+ over his last 25 PAs. In that same time frame, Ruf has 8 PAs (this should be telling), and my guess is that Abreu will now start to create a gap with Ruf. He's a notorious 2nd half hitter and he'll likely be getting 4 new lineup-mates for added protection.

Alas, they are both good at what they do, respectively. Ruf is a good part-time platoon guy/ pinch hitter on a good NL team, and Abreu is good at being a franchise cornerstone and team captain for a good AL team.

My point in every single one of these rebuttals is that Abreu's 2021 so far represents 8% of his PAs, so I don't really care. If Ruf could put up a 120 wRC+ over 276 PAs in 88 games, someone would pay him to do that and a lot more than $1.5 million. The fact of the matter is, he can't, and that's ok. He's still a very nice puzzle piece, but he's not better than Jose Abreu.

Why? Because when you are determining who is a better player at any time, only looking at their last 140 PAs or even 350 PAs is a terrible methodology. Jose Abreu is better because he's amassed a 132 wRC+ over more than 4500 PAs and whose WORST offensive season was 114 wRC+. Abreu has 376 PAs this year, Ruf won't even get there this year and he's never even had 300 PAs in a season. Now, if you want to take the 60 games from last year and 94 games from this year and make that your sample size, I (and every single other rational baseball analyst) would say that's much more reasonable to determine who the better baseball player IS.

Abreu's been a 4-win player (638 PAs) while Ruf (259 PAs) is at 2.2 WAR. And if you want to say "omg only 40% of the PAs", well yeah, but for like the 5th time, it's not realistic that Ruf would ever get 638 PAs over 148 games.

There's my defense. That's all the proof I need.

If you asked any semi-intelligent baseball fan who the better player is overall, the reigning AL MVP would be literally everyone's pick but yours.

All you have to do is ask yourself, would you trade Darin Ruf straight up for Jose Abreu?

No? Exactly.

And i'm not partial to ZiPS. I was talking about literally any projection system you can find. They all like Abreu more ROS. There's no dogged faith in the projections, but you'd think at least one of them would like Ruf more given that he's clearly the better baseball player, right?


38.) 21 Jul 2021 03:38:46
Abreu tonight - 3 for 5 with a homer, double and triple. He's been on fire since you started this asinine comparison, but hey I say you keep it up.


39.) 21 Jul 2021 14:57:27
"All you have to do is ask yourself, would you trade Darin Ruf straight up for Jose Abreu? "

Why would I? I'm getting the same wins above replacement for $1.25M that Jose Abreu gives you at 1360% of the upcharge. Does surplus value not matter anymore? I'm not mocking you. I'm being dead serious.

Ask yourself this question: who is more likely to give his team value over the next 18 months?

Abreu will be owed just south of 20M in 2022, his age 35 season. At 7M per win, he needs to have a 2.8 WAR season. He's done that exactly one time since 2017. And it was a 60-game season. Once. 1. Uno.

Darin Ruf will get paid about 4-5M in arbitration. At the same rate, Ruf needs to have a 0.6 WAR season. He's done that each of his last two. In fact, he's pretty well shot right past it both times (after adjustments for 2020).

I'm not saying that Ruf would be traded for Abreu, but if surplus value is a thing, then Ruf, by literally every possible way to measure it, would be better. There's no argument you can make against that.

Abreu is more than likely, if his trend is any indication, going to present negative value. And that's probably fine for the White Sox. They are getting crazy value around the field, they can support the weight of Jose Abreu not being worth the money.


Player A- Has a 2.5 WAR season at age 35 and costs nearly 20M.
Player B- Has a 1.5 WAR season at age 35 and costs nearly 5M.

Savvy teams like the Giants or the Rays are always going to pick Player B. Because his contract allows them to give more money to get more production around him. Let's say both players' teams go and throw 30M at Kris Bryant next winter.

Player A's team has 50M locked into him and Bryant. Player B's team has 35M. That's now $15M that Player B's team could use to get a starter and a reliever. So now, for 50M, Player A's team got 2 guys. Player B's got 4.

Let's also say Kris Bryant has a 5 win season in 2022. Now, here's how it balances out:

Player A + Bryant - 7.5 WAR, 50M.
Player B + Bryant- 6.5 WAR, 35M.

All Player B's team needs is for his starter and reliever to have 0.5 WAR seasons each to match the production. That's it.

So yeah, Darin Ruf is the more valuable player when it comes to trades. And yeah, a smart baseball team wouldn't trade him, straight up, for Jose Abreu.

Unless, of course, you want to argue surplus value doesn't exist solely for the purpose of Jose Abreu, which wouldn't surprise me. Consistency isn't exactly your finest quality.


40.) 21 Jul 2021 16:35:59
And the idea that full-time production is inherently more valuable than part-time is so archaic, I honestly have to wonder how old you are.

This, for the most part, has been your argument. Abreu puts up 650 PAs and Darin Ruf doesn't, therefore, Abreu is more valuable. Ruf is a platoon player, and Abreu mans the position by himself, so Abreu is more valuable.

Forward-thinking teams don't care if the guy is a platoon player. To them, that doesn't make him less valuable. In fact, it might actually ENHANCE his value, because you aren't using him in spots where he's not that great.

Consider this: a team like the Rays or Giants aren't going to employ Jose Abreu full-time. If he were on the Giants, Zaidi would likely bench Abreu versus right-handed pitchers. His 119 wRC+ against RHH would take a back seat to someone like LaMonte Wade, Jr., who is hitting 156 against RHP. The ONLY reason the Giants would use Abreu on the daily might be due to sunk cost, but even then, they don't seem to operate in that regard.

Now, because the White Sox have a cheapskate owner, I'd imagine there is some sunk cost decision-making taking place. Abreu is their most expensive player. So I can't imagine them trying to tell Reinsdorf they are benching him for Sheets, who throughout the minors, has destroyed righties.

In other words, you're basing "value" on organizational philosophy and front-office decision making, as opposed to, I don't know, the actual production on the field.

The part-time vs. full-time argument is archaic. And in any Fortune 500 company (of which, sports teams would likely be included if they qualified), a full-timer being out-produced by a part-timer would result in the full=timer getting canned, especially when that full timer is making 9x as much money.

There's no context to justify that. None. Any MLB front office worth their salt would see Darin Ruf as more valuable, except maybe the Rockies. So congrats, you're as forward thinking as the Colorado Rockies!

Just accept that Darin Ruf is a) having a better 2021 and b) more valuable than Jose Abreu.

It's okay to accept things that are true. It's also so, so freeing.


41.) 21 Jul 2021 16:59:02
Abreu is on pace for exactly a 2.8-win season this year and over the last couple of weeks, he's gotten back to his MVP production. You're "fluke season" narrative is starting to take a hit.

Last year he was on pace for north of 6 wins in a normal year. Would he have gotten there? Maybe, maybe not. You, again, arbitrability pick post-2017 as your cut off point solely because 2018 was Abreu's worst season (again, an absolutely putrid 114 wRC+) and because in 2017, he was worth 4.3 wins and a 139 wRC+.

Your scenario for 2022 has Ruf producing at his 90th+ percentile while Abreu isn't. It's convenient for your argument's sake, but then again, who's shown more longevity thus far? ZiPS has Ruf at -0.7 fWAR next year. Oh wait, you don't like that one, it's not good for your argument.

Surplus value matters, but calculating it based on scaled results from 140 PAs is not how it works. You are really overthinking this. Your argument has also interestingly shifted from Ruf being "objectively better" to "but but but surplus value" after Abreu's .5-win couple of weeks (which is even better than his 2020 production rate) and Ruf's 71 wRC+ over the same span with half of his PAs as a pinch hitter.

Funny how that works.


42.) 21 Jul 2021 18:47:40
LOL. That "MVP" production was was 2.6 wins over 60 (SIXTY! ) games, not 162. We're 96 games in (36 more than the entirety of last year), and Abreu isn't even to his 2020 production.

And 2.8 WAR isn't even close to an MVP-level season. Unless you get a Ryan Tepera situation, where someone meant to click Jose Altuve, and instead clicked Jose Abreu, Abreu won't get a single MVP vote this year. Not one.


43.) 21 Jul 2021 18:49:12
A full-time player IS more valuable. The Giants have to not only pay the same for their first base production, they also have to use an extra roster spot for essentially the same production (again, save me the 2021 first half numbers as your only sample) . That spot could be used to platoon elsewhere, carry a pinch runner/ defensive replacement (i. e. Billy Hamilton) or an extra reliever, all of which valuable.

"Just accept that Darin Ruf is a) having a better 2021 and b) more valuable than Jose Abreu. "

Here we go again, this is objectively false. Remember your rationale? Abreu now has a higher WAR thru 2021, LMAO. So who really needs to accept new things, Nathan?


44.) 21 Jul 2021 19:06:06
"Your scenario for 2022 has Ruf producing at his 90th+ percentile while Abreu isn't. It's convenient for your argument's sake, but then again, who's shown more longevity thus far? ZiPS has Ruf at -0.7 fWAR next year. Oh wait, you don't like that one, it's not good for your argument. "

Right. We've established this, Adrian.

These projections also had Darin Ruf as a 0.2 WIN player and the Giants at 75 wins. So, pardon me for a second if I'm a bit skeptical that they can predict what a guy will do in 2022. For what it's worth, those same predictions also have Willians Astudillo at 1.6 WAR at 1B. The guy who, over his last 143 PAs has been worth -0.4 WAR. Yes, him. They project him to be worth 1.6 WAR in 2022.

Or Pat Valaika at 1.7 WAR. (Only 0.2 less than Nick Madrigal, FYI) . Valaika's past 413 PAs? -0.9 WAR. But yes, ZiPS 2022. Tell me more about how his next 450 will be worth 1.7.

Or Austin Allen (109 PAs, -0.2 WAR), will be worth 1.4 WAR, higher than Tucker Barnhart, Buster Posey, or even James McCann.

You want me to keep going? We could talk about how even ZiPS 2022 doesn't have any faith in Jose Abreu. Only 1.2 WAR. Ouchie. They currently believe that Willians Astudillo will have a better 2022 than Jose Abreu. Consider that. A guy so bad, even the 40-55 Minnesota Twins optioned to the Minors.

If we go by the ZiPS 2022 projections, Willians Astudillo is a better and more valuable 1B than Jose Abreu. I fully expect you to lobby for a Abreu-Astudillo trade now.

I mean, did you even bother looking at the names on those lists? The fact you even brought them up shows that you have no idea how the projections even work. Dan Szymborski has relentlessly and breathlessly referred to why certain players, especially those that go overseas for a while, are tough to project. ZiPS requires MLB numbers from 2019, for example, but Darin Ruf doesn't have 2019 MLB numbers (he was in KBO), so the system negatively grades him. It also negatively grades him on 2018. And 2017. So that's three full seasons that impacts a "projection".

More comical ZiPS 2022 projections:
Tim Beckham has the same WAR as Jazz Chisholm.
Nomar Mazara has a higher WAR (0.5) than Andrew Vaughn (0.2).
Rico Garcia (0.8) with a higher WAR than Garrett Crochet (0.4).

I can keep going if you want me to. So unless you want to admit that you think Rico Garcia, who has pitched 16 MLB innings to the tune of a 7.31 ERA is going to be twice as productive as the White Sox 2020 1st Round Draft pick, I'd kindly suggest you don't take much stock into ZiPS 2022.


45.) 21 Jul 2021 19:48:01
It's also hilarious that you're like, "YOU CAN'T USE THE SMALL SAMPLE SIZE! " and then in the very next breath, you try to use 73 PAs in July to disprove my case about how there's not enough to prove Darin Ruf is better.

By the way, in the month of July, let's take a look at the numbers, since you REALLY want to go there.

Abreu- 5 HR, .328 AVG/ 1.055 OPS, 181 wRC+
Ruf- 4 HR, .286 AVG/ 1.214 OPS, 214 wRC+.

Your "71 wRC+" argument comes after 10 (ten) plate appearances. Abreu's is 25 PAs. So, for sake of "fairness", let's look at their last 25 PAs. I don't think you'll like this at all.

Abreu- .318/ 1.355, 3 HR, 9 RBI, 253 wRC+
Ruf- .292/ 1.308, 4 HR, 8 RBI, 234 wRC+

You tried to sneak in a 25 PA vs. 10 PA comparison LOLOLOL. Each player's last 25 PAs seems awfully similar, do they not?

Seriously, give it up dude. You're spiraling downward in your attempt to sound really smart, but you continue to look bad.

It's actually hilarious how wrong you continue to be, and how desperate your arguments are.

Notice how you went from "Abreu is better overall" to "Abreu has been sooo much better over the last 25 PAs" (which is demonstrably false) .

And "well, ZiPS 2022 says Ruf is only a -0.7 WAR player next year" (I literally don't care about projections, especially ones for 2022, when we're discussing 2021).

You should honestly sit a couple plays out. You're trying WAYYY to hard and getting absolutely nowhere.


46.) 22 Jul 2021 01:55:22
Hey, Abreu is now the better player by your standards. Your argument is dead. You still actually think that Darin Ruf is better at baseball than Jose Abreu. Can we get a sanity check?

And guess what, Einstein, 25:10 is the same as 381:143. Yeah, math is hard. You want to go by a small sample size, I'll raise you and just go proportionally smaller. 25 PAs is all it took for Abreu to overtake Ruf in WAR, lol. You still don't understand that you don't get to compare Abreu to Ruf ABs 1:1 because That. Will. Never. Happen. For the third time, it's the same as me comparing Liam Hendriks or Kimbrel innings to any established SP and saying "well yeah Hendriks is on a 320 K pace".

Slow down, breathe a little bit. Let's try to comprehend what I'm teaching you about sample size and player comparison by player type. You're quite clearly struggling.

"Notice how you went from "Abreu is better overall" to "Abreu has been sooo much better over the last 25 PAs" (which is demonstrably false) . "

Nope. I said since this thread was started. It isn't my fault Ruf hasn't played more than 10 PAs since then. But that's what what platoon guys and pinch hitters do. Abreu is both better overall in 2021 AND since July 11.


47.) 22 Jul 2021 13:12:13
"It's now been 5 or 6 times in this thread where I've conceded that Darin Ruf's 2021 season has (had) been better than Abreu. "

Shot.

"Abreu is both better overall in 2021 AND since July 11."

Chaser.


48.) 22 Jul 2021 13:27:39
And no, you used the July 11th mark because it was the ONLY THING you could find.

You've also referenced it three times, so we can all tell you're super excited about a 1-week span of baseball games.

So, if you're trying to use it to justify that you can't determine anything from it, then what's your point? Where do we draw the line?

To write off the platoon PAs simply because they are less than your guys' is silly, because it fails to comprehend the nature of platooning. If you'd prefer, we can rope in LaMonte Wade, Jr. to give us the fuller picture, but to write off 10 HR in 150 PAs, or 1.5 WAR in that same span, which is damn impressive, by literally any standard, because you don't think it's very many PAs is silly.

Think of it this way: Ruf is getting a win every 100 plate appearances. Abreu is getting one every 226. So, here me out:

The Giants don't need Darin Ruf to have 400 plate appearances to be worth what Jose Abreu is worth. They simply don't.

Also, your Hendriks vs. a starting pitcher argument is, yet again, pure nonsense. No one is expecting Liam Hendriks to have a higher WAR than a pitcher.

BUT, at the end of the year, if Hendriks had a higher WAR than, say, Alex Wood, would you sit back and say, "Alex Wood is the better pitcher? "

No, you'd argue, breathlessly, that the White Sox pitcher is better. And you would conveniently forget this argument.

You'd also be right. Who on earth cares that in span, Hendriks will have 70 IP and Wood has around 140? Why would that matter? If nothing, it makes Wood look worse, because he had double the chances to provide value.

Jose Abreu has had 2.5x more chances to provide value than Darin Ruf, and yet, he has 0.2 WAR more than him.

I repeat: The Giants don't need Darin Ruf to have 400 plate appearances for him to be as good as Jose Abreu.

Sit on that for a moment.


49.) 22 Jul 2021 15:09:53
Since this conversation has gone on WAYYY too long, I'll conclude with this.

If you're tasked with building a baseball team and you have to pick from 2 34-year-old first basemen, and you're presented with the following data, which would you pick:

Player A: 2.9 WAR
Player B: 1.9 WAR

At the very first glance, you'd pick Player A. We all would. But as you honestly take a deeper look, you see more added information:

Player A: 2.9 WAR, 650 PAs.
Player B: 1.9 WAR, 200 PAs.

Your view would begin to shift. More information is discovered:

Player A: 2.9 WAR, 650 PAs. Salary: 17.667M
Player B: 1.9 WAR, 200 PAs. Salary: 1.275M

Now, there's literally zero questions. You're picking Player B. Because not only is he giving you 1 Win per 100 PAs (compared to one every 232), but he's doing so at 7% of the cost. For another $16M, you can more than make up for that 1-win difference between the two.

You began by stating that the stat lines don't tell the full story. And you're right. They don't tell us that Darin Ruf has been ridiculously efficient in his plate appearances. They don't tell us that Jose Abreu, by that comparison, has been an abject disappointment in 2021.

But the story it does tell is that Darin Ruf is clearly the guy you're picking, if you have to pick the two. Literally, if Rick Hahn could choose between Jose Abreu and Darin Ruf in 2021, if he was worth his salt (I'm not convinced), he'd pick Darin Ruf.

To get 1 Win per 100 plate appearances, and only have to pay a million bucks? Or get 1 win every 226, and pay $17M.

If this is a difficult decision, then it's evident you can't be taken seriously. It's also clear that you're more interested in standing on your own arrogance as opposed to trying to learn and adapt.

Wait a second. Holding onto bad arguments. Valuing archaic ideas like full-time vs. platoon. Unwilling to change from your point of view. Ridiculous White Sox homer.

AM I TALKING TO TONY LA RUSSA?


50.) 22 Jul 2021 17:15:01
"And no, you used the July 11th mark because it was the ONLY THING you could find. "

No, it's literally when this conversation started.

You started this thread by saying that Ruf was the better baseball player because he, at that current time, had the higher fWAR, and therefore he was an objectively better player. I conceded that point, and it was all you said you needed to prove your overall point. I argued that more than a half season's numbers should be used to judge player quality, but you didn't agree. I still feel that way. I wouldn't now argue that Abreu is clearly better than Ruf because of solely 2021 number IF that wasn't the original logic you used against me.

Then as time went on, Abreu played everyday like he always does and Ruf played 60% less, which is exactly the rate at which Abreu has outpaced Rug in PAs this season. Abreu, in the matter of like 10 days, gained .5 fWAR and passed Ruf. Now, yes, I can say that Abreu is both the better player overall (remember, I am only using your original logic the same way you did) because of him having a higher fWAR, and since July 11th. I'm not making the argument that the "since July 11th" numbers matter, that was more of an irony thing.

My next question to you would have been, if 140ish PAs of Ruf outproducing Abreu was enough for you to call him the better overall player, is 100 too little? How about 75? 50? 25? Where is the line drawn? That also adds to the context of me bringing up "since July 11".

Abreu is an accomplished and consistent hitter. This is evidenced by you calling his 125 wRC+, near 3-win paced season an "abject disappointment" and his worst season being at 114. He has set a high bar for himself, and his haters I guess.

If the Giants didn't have Brandon Belt (who they are paying almost just as much as Abreu only to hit RHP) and LaMonte Wade, then Ruf wouldn't be as valuable as he is to the Giants. Credit to Zaidi for having those options and being able to deploy them all optimally, but that's not speaking to the quality of player that Ruf is. If the Giants had no one to play 1B against RHP, Ruf mashing lefties wouldn't matter as much. If your argument is then that Ruf also has a 116 wRC+ against RHP too, then why don't the Giants play him everyday and see what happens? They could move Belt or Wade and use the roster spot to improve elsewhere. They won't because they're smarter than that and they know that Ruf playing everyday would not be nearly as good.

"Literally, if Rick Hahn could choose between Jose Abreu and Darin Ruf in 2021, if he was worth his salt (I'm not convinced), he'd pick Darin Ruf. "

This is just not true. Both Hahn and Zaidi would pick Abreu over Ruf because with the latter, you have to find another 1B who plays the other 60-70% of the time and is therefore the more crucial piece to the success of production at 1B. Luckily for them, they have, and reasons like that are why they have won 63% of their games

So, the Giants have paid ~$9 million for ~2.1 WAR of production at 1B this year so far (all while using 3 roster spots), while the Sox have paid ~$8.5 million for 1.7 WAR from one guy. Zaidi's brilliance has saved the team $715k/ WAR compared to employing Abreu. I'd then probably argue the value of 2 roster spots is worth more than $715k over 95 games.

Hahn and Zaidi would take Abreu in a heartbeat, and it's not close. Ruf is good at what he does, but what he does isn't enough for full-time 1B production.


51.) 23 Jul 2021 04:24:30
If you and I ran a 5K, and I ran it in 18 minutes, while you ran it in 30 minutes, you would argue that you were the better runner because you were able to run for 30 minutes and I didn't show that I could.

"Oh, Ruf has the same WAR in significantly less PAs? Well, it's because he's not good enough to play that many PAs! "

I hope you understand how incredibly pathetic you sound. It's actually become quite sad.

Have a good one, Patrick. Enjoy the swift exit to whatever AL East team the White Sox play.


52.) 23 Jul 2021 12:41:33
Oof, throw a couple more facts at Statbook and he'll continue to use the same extraneous analogy in different forms hoping that'll save him before settling with

"yeah, but, but the WHITE SOX WILL LOOSE! "

Talk about pathetic.

Ruf doesn't have the same WAR though, Nathan, and is therefore the worst overall player. Please refer to your own logic in the above thread.

Thank you.


53.) 26 Jul 2021 14:57:40
You know, Chi Sox, I noticed you stopped throwing out there how excited you were over meaningless PAs against the Twins, I wondered, how good is Abreu against decent teams.

And how good is Darin Ruf against decent teams?

Because it's really, really easy to tee off against the Royals, Tigers, Twins and Orioles. And the results were staggering.

Here were the splits:
Abreu vs. .500 teams- .169/ .603 OPS, 9 HR, .268 wOBA, 68 wRC+
Abreu vs. sub-.500 teams- .343/ 1.020 OPS, 9 HR, .426 wOBA, 170 wRC+

Now, for the "weak side platoon bench piece", Mr. Darin Ruf:
Ruf vs. .500 teams- .280/ .973, 6 HR, .417 wOBA, 164 wRC+
Ruf vs. sub-.500 teams- .241/ .918, 4 HR, .383 wOBAm 142 wRC+

When playing potentially playoff caliber teams, Darin Ruf hits 164 wRC+, Abreu hits nearly 100 points less (68).

So the question is: who do you want at bat against a good baseball team?

If you say Jose Abreu, you're lying to yourself.


54.) 26 Jul 2021 22:20:44
Abreu can't control who he plays, Nate. The Royals, Tigers and Twins are all in division. He's going to play each of those teams 19 times. Naturally, better pitching, which is usually on better teams, is tougher to hit.

Who would have thought?

If you think Ruf hitting better this season against .500 or better teams is some kind of gotcha, I don't know what to tell you. I'm sure if Abreu was a trade candidate, teams would look at his numbers and say "well gosh darn, you know, he really struggles against .500 or better teams, we better not acquire him. "

Do yourself a favor and google "selection bias".


55.) 27 Jul 2021 12:06:37
"Abreu can't control who he plays, Nate. "

Neither can Darin Ruf. And yet, he's mashing good pitching, whereas Jose Abreu is not.

And yes, a player's ability to hit decent pitching is ABSOLUTELY going to be a factor in front offices. If I have the Dodgers, Padres, Brewers, and the Mets still on the schedule, I don't want to spend big prospects on a guy who has hit 68 wRC+ against those caliber teams. And I certainly would be hesitant to add that bat for the postseason.

If you don't think teams are looking at how players perform against good teams, I honestly don't know what to tell you.

Heck, the Giants literally got a great return for a pitcher with a 6+ ERA because of THREE (3) solid relief starts against the Cubs and Phillies. He had 4 total relief appearances that year for the Giants.


56.) 27 Jul 2021 12:12:57
Let's put it another way, if the Dodgers, for example, were looking at acquiring Jose Abreu, mostly to help bail Rick Hahn out of that terrible contract, he would probably be more interested in how Abreu plays against teams like the Giants and Padres and not so much the Rockies and Diamondbacks.

Once again, I'm sorry that the information given doesn't mix with your need for Jose Abreu to be this incredible baseball player.

I'm sorry that it, once again, proves you completely wrong.

And I'm sorry that your pathetic attempts to dismiss this information is falling on deaf ears. Anyone with brain cells to rub together can see how desperate you are.

ALL I'm doing is continuing to put information (read: stats) that shows that Ruf is better than Abreu right now.

All you're doing is using silly, subjective things like, "if they were both up as trade candidates. " or "well, Abreu was MVP last year". Never a single stat. Not one. Except a string of stats from 25 randomly selected plate appearances to try and prove my stats wrong, apparently.

It's literally the most pathetic attempt you've made on this site. And that says a lot, considering who I'm dealing with.

Look, Brandon, life is a heckuva lot easier when you just take a deep breath, run a few laps, and shake off the angry feels over facts you don't like.

Go give it a shot. Maybe watch some rhythmic gymnastics in the Olympics and give baseball a break. This isn't looking good for you.

Toodles.


 

 

30 Dec 2020 03:01:52
White Sox/Cubs

White Sox get:

Kyle Hendricks RHP
Kris Bryant 3B/OF

Cubs Get:
Michael Kopech RHP
Jose Rodriguez SS/2B
Bryce Bush 3B/OF

The Cubs are clearly in DEEP financial troubles given the Darvish deal. The C.V. hit them at the worst possible time with their expenditures outside of baseball. They would be best suited to tear it down with Hoyer as the new head honcho, This deal clears an additional $32.6 million in 2020 and potential $76 million total.

Do they make this deal with their crosstown rival that already fleeced them in the recent 2017 blockbuster? Probably not - we're talking about the once face of the franchise (and they thought face of baseball) bat and now clearly their best pitcher. But beyond that, this makes sense for both teams.

Bryant can play both OF & INF corners, but mainly slot into LF and allow Eloy Jimenez to DH more often than not for one year. He doesn't have a lot of trade value at all. Adding Hendricks gives the Sox the best rotation in the AL.

Hendricks could very well remain even if Bryant, Contreras and/or Baez is dealt given his control. However, if they are intent on a full tear down, Hendricks' value probably isn't going to appreciate much more.

The Cubs still get a top-25 prospect and a couple of intriguing lottery tickets.

Chi Sox

1.) 30 Dec 2020 17:13:57
Would they sell that low on both players, especially after getting "hosed" on the Darvish deal? (FWIW, I don't think the Darvish deal was *that* bad. ) He'll be 35 in April and is owed ~60M still. The Cubs getting Davies and 4 45 FV prospects for him is a decent haul.

I also don't understand how Cubs ownership can claim poverty. They just made billions on the sale of TD Ameritrade to Charles Schwab (and screwed over 10,000+ people in Omaha in the process) .

I do wonder how overplayed the financial crisis is in Chicago. Are they out of money? Or do they just not want to pay a 35-year-old pitcher all that money right now? Can they keep Hendricks and Bryant (and extend Bryant) now that they've freed up some money elsewhere?

I think there's a lot of overblown media hype surrounding this move. It could be that Hoyer thinks really highly of the youngsters he's getting back.


2.) 30 Dec 2020 17:21:12
As far as this deal is concerned: the question would remain as I've asked: how valuable is Kopech, really? Do you honestly think the White Sox can get not just one, but TWO legitimately talented players with just him?

Remember: he hasn't played in 2 years. He skipped the season over something that is rather concerning (a divorce, which, unfortunately is common enough that it's not a reason to opt out), and his mental health issues–regardless of how you feel about the issue–are going to be a topic of conversation in front offices.

The Cubs have, over the past several years, focused on guys who come in with very few questions about attitude, behavior, and character. That's not to say their players are perfect humans, but it's obvious that avoiding potential head-cases (of which Kopech is 100%) is a goal of theirs.

Frankly, I don't see the Cubs taking Kopech as the centerpiece for the best remaining starting pitcher and their most popular player in their franchise.

I see them working out a long-term deal with Bryant.


 

 

24 Nov 2020 00:06:14
White Sox/Rays

White Sox Get:
Blake Snell LHP

Rays Get:
Andrew Vaughn 1B
Michael Kopech RHP
Lenyn Sosa SS
Alec Hansen RHP

Chi Sox

1.) 24 Nov 2020 18:44:33
Take one of the first two guys out of the deal to make this work. Otherwise, this is a PERFECT deal from the Tampa perspective.


2.) 24 Nov 2020 22:07:12
Either:

A. This is a significant overpay for Blake Snell OR
B. You think very poorly of Vaughn and Kopech.


3.) 24 Nov 2020 22:53:14
Overpay.

Both Kopech and Vaughn have the pedigree and skills to become major leaguers. Kopech's path is clearly all about his health. but the early information says he's going to be just fine. Vaughn has a special bat that just does incredibly well at the ML level. Getting both. makes this an overpay.


4.) 24 Nov 2020 23:06:10
Given that Vaughn is a 1st baseman, Kopech hasn't thrown a pitch since August 2018 and we are talking about a top-20 pitcher on a 3-year/ $39 million contract, I don't think it's *that* much of an overpay.

I don't think Vaughn/ Kopech and Dunning/ Stiever gets the job done.


5.) 25 Nov 2020 02:48:02
It also gives them the flexibility to still get George Springer, something that Trevor Bauer wouldn't allow.


6.) 25 Nov 2020 12:24:15
Based on back-of-the-napkin math, Snell has a "surplus value" of anywhere from 45-55M.

You yourself claim that Vaughn's value is 55M on its own.

So, how poorly do you think of Kopech? Just curious.


7.) 25 Nov 2020 12:30:01
Frankly, Vaughn is very, very good, but I don't think Tampa Bay wants to give up Snell for a guy they don't need. They have a plethora of 1B options, including Nate Lowe, Yandy Diaz, and Ji-Man Choi (should they tender him a contract) .

They'll likely want a position of immediate need for him.


8.) 25 Nov 2020 15:37:15
At $9M/ WAR, I calculated Snell's projected surplus value in the $60-70 million range. Add in the fact that the move would allow the Sox to still get the top bat on the market, and he's worth even more.

I think 8 combined seasons of Snell + Springer would outperform 11 seasons of Vaughn + Kopech. The window was kicked open this year, and the next 3-4 years is likely the Sox's best shot to win. Getting a cheap ace only increases the likelihood of this happening. Kopech has dealt with injury and mental health issues. The sky's the limit for either guy, but Snell gives me a much better immediate chance to win in this designed window.

For the record, I really like Vaughn and Kopech. However, I don't think just because a rumor was floated out that the Rays are making Snell available means they are extremely motivated to trade him. They are going to want a haul. Maybe the second piece doesn't have to be Kopech -- maybe they like Dunning, Stiever, or even Dylan Cease enough with a higher quality 3rd piece.

I think any reasonable deal that doesn't involve *both* Vaughn and Kopech should almost be a no brainer for the White Sox.

But your note about the Rays having a plethora of 1B options kind of helps my initial point. While Vaughn would certainly be a better option than any combination of Diaz, Lowe, or Choi, we still are talking about first base.


9.) 25 Nov 2020 17:01:38
If the Rays aren't "extremely motivated" to move Snell, what would entice them more: a position of need (catcher) or one in which they have a big surplus (1B/ DH)?

As you said above, they want someone who can contribute immediately. I don't think that includes a 1B (who they don't need) who hasn't played above high-A ball, and a pitcher with "injury and mental health issues" (to use your own quote) .


10.) 25 Nov 2020 17:04:33
You should also work on your sales ability. You don't try to sell a product (in this case, a trade idea) and then downplay the side you're giving up.

"I think 8 combined seasons of Snell + Springer would outperform 11 seasons of Vaughn + Kopech. "

So, why wouldn't the Rays just find someone who can contribute at or above Springer's level (say Arozarena? ) and keep Snell? Why give up the better player for a package that'll get out-performed?

It's remarkable, you got me from believing this was a significant overpay to believing it's a significant underpay, all because you kept trying to sell it. You literally talked your way out of making me believe this deal.

It truly is incredible.


11.) 25 Nov 2020 19:39:28
My goal here isn't to sell you on a trade, believe it or not Nate. As much as you pretend to be, you are not this site's arbiter.

This idea was spawned from the rumors of Snell's availability. I'm allowed to speculate as to how much merit I would like to give it. My guess is that they are flaring his name out there in case an team wants to "blow them away", and that's what my proposed trade would likely do.

"So, why wouldn't the Rays just find someone who can contribute at or above Springer's level (say Arozarena? ) and keep Snell? Why give up the better player for a package that'll get out-performed? "

No kidding! Why are the Rays looking to trade Snell?

It's obviously puzzling why the current AL champion would be looking to trade their ace, but this is how the Rays operate. The run their team like a company on Wall St. (there's a whole book on this btw), so they are alway looking to sell high on ANY of their assets. Given the money lost in 2020, the $39 million owed to Snell by the Rays probably means a lot more to the Rays than it would literally any other team. For the Rays however, even with prospect uncertainty, I'm pretty confident that 11 seasons of Vaughn and Kopech will outperform 3 years of Snell.

They very well may be "extremely motivated", but they won't show their hand. They know that Snell, given his skill and contract status, could fit on virtually any team. My point in pointing out the "flaws" of Vaughn and Kopech were to provide context as to how they're no sure thing for the White Sox here in their contention window. This trade is an overpay, but if I had to guess, that's what it will require to get a bonafide ace on a crazy cheap deal.

If the Giants' offer for Snell is one top-20 prospect that struggled mightily (albeit in a small sample) that probably needs to start the season in AAA, they will definitely be outbid, and it will be rather quickly.


12.) 26 Nov 2020 14:03:00
0 believable, 10 unbelievable (and growing) . You didn't sell ANYONE on this trade.

And I'm giving you a hard time. It's not a bad trade. Vaughn and Kopech are good players. They have tons of trade value. But neither serves a need for the Rays.

At the very least, Joey Bart fills an immediate need for the Rays, who currently have one catcher on their 40-man roster, and even that guy hasn't had a single at-bat above High-A ball. It's no doubt they need catchers. Taking on a cheap, top 15 prospect, who also plays catcher and has some major league experience would be pretty attractive to a budget-conscious team like Tampa Bay.

If they are worried about him being able to immediately fill in, they could sign a guy like Jason Castro for a couple million and then let Castro (or literally anyone) be a backup after Bart gets a handful of games at AAA.

Could a bunch of teams outbid the Giants? Of course. But it seems like Tampa Bay wants the RIGHT deal, not just the deal with the best players.


13.) 26 Nov 2020 14:11:44
You missed the point of my "sales pitch" criticism (surprise, surprise) .

For starters, you are, in fact, trying to "sell" me (and everyone on this site) on your ideas. If you weren't, you wouldn't pay my criticisms any attention or get worked up over them. Yet, here you are.

You can use the word "defend" if you'd prefer. It all adds up the same. Your defense of your trade didn't make sense to me.

On one hand, the Rays are going to demand the world for Blake Snell (it's my opinion that Snell isn't going to net as much as you think, but that's just my opinion), but on the other hand, the Rays will accept a deal for guys that are "no sure thing for the White Sox here in their contention window"?

But they make sense for the Rays, who are an objectively better baseball team in every possible way?

Remove the team names and ask yourself which package would convince the Rays to accept:

Package A: A first baseman (who they don't need) who hasn't had a single PA above High-A ball and a pitcher with "injury and mental health issues. " (Mind you, the Rays have a bad history of players in their organization with major mental health issues) .

OR

Package B: A catcher (of which their team has a significant and glaring need for) that ranks in the top 15 prospects, has 6 years of team control, and has MLB experience.

The player in package B isn't a perfect baseball player. Neither are any in package A. But if the Rays are going to demand to be motivated to move Snell, I'd imagine acquiring players they NEED will probably be more likely to motivate them.

For what it's worth, I don't think Zaidi offers Bart for Snell, not even straight up. So it wouldn't be much to top an offer that Zaidi wouldn't offer. I suggested mine because it was something that works in theory.


14.) 26 Nov 2020 17:15:12
" but on the other hand, the Rays will accept a deal for guys that are "no sure thing for the White Sox here in their contention window"?

But they make sense for the Rays, who are an objectively better baseball team in every possible way? "

Yes. This is where understanding team context really matters. The only reason why Snell is even being discussed is Tampa Bay's budget constraints that are accentuated due to the C.V.. That's why they typically look to sell high, etc. -- if you read my last reply.

And Vaughn and Kopech are no more of a "no sure thing" than any other prospects. I made that point only because prospects are never a sure thing. Teams like Tampa have to be confident they can develop "no sure things" into playoff-contributing players all the time.

Vaughn is, as I already said, a better option than any of their in-house candidates at first base and the Rays could likely do wonders for Michael Kopech. Kopech is the typical high-velo, high induced vertical break pitcher that they thrive with. ie. Tyler Glasnow, Fairbanks, Snell, McClanahan, etc. Neander and Co. would drool over this package if it was on the table, despite the flaws that make these 2 not "perfect prospects".

They Rays would take Vaughn and Kopech in a heart beat over Bart. Like it's not even close. Don't tell me you are going to make that argument. Yes, they want "the right players" given that they still want to contend in 2021, but they would get 10x more value from Vaughn and Kopech this year (and likely through the next 6 years for that matter) rather than Bart. 99 times/ 100 the "right players" are also the better players. Bart wouldn't solve their immediate catching needs because he belongs in AAA for at least a couple months. His pitch selection issues were terrible in his 1st 100 or so PA sample. He has the potential to be a really good MLB catcher, he just isn't what the Rays would be seeking right now.

As as I also said, the trade doesn't make sense anyway for the Giants given where they are in their rebuild.


15.) 27 Nov 2020 08:53:39
There is a bunch of rumblings that Zaidi prefers the catcher he drafted (Bailey) over Bart as it were. He's also stated, repeatedly, in every possible way, that the Giants plan on trying to compete in 2021 and that they will seek top level pitchers.

So unless it's just lip service, a trade for Snell would fall in line with what Zaidi plans to do. And it's been something that many people I've ran it by: baseball nerds, beat writers, TB fans, and others have all pretty much agreed that it's fair and makes a lot of sense for both teams.

You don't have to like the trade, because guess what: YOU'RE NOT THIS SITE'S ARBITER, EITHER. The irony of your own comment got totally lost on you.

But to pretend like it's a terrible trade that doesn't make any sense? I'd say at this point, you disagree with the trade simply because it made by Natedog (me) . Just admit it and let's move on, shall we?


16.) 27 Nov 2020 19:04:46
We can move on, it's fine. I think Zaidi stating the have wants to compete in 21 is what's lip service to the fan base. There's really no scenario where they're better than LA or San Diego, and if you want to argue for a second wild card spot, I'd argue for 5 or so NL teams better set up for short term success.

I'm not going to criticize Zaidi for saying that (it's just GM talk), but we both know that's awfully ambitious.

I don't think it's a terrible trade (especially on your scale), but I simply don't think it makes sense for either side - and that's obviously just my opinion. If the Rays are in fact EXTREMELY motivated to move Snell for financial reasons and a trade for Joey Bart straight up is the best offer TB gets, then fine -- but I think the chances of both of those facts being true is slim to none. If we look at Vaughn, Kopech, and Bart -- Bart is the 3rd best in that group. Add in the fact that Bart almost surely needs to start 2021 in AAA (Kopech probably does too FWIW), and all I'm saying is that Hahn picks the phone up and gives TB a better deal very quickly. All that would take is Vaughn + 2 or 3 40 FV prospects.

The last thing I'll say about Zaidi and Bart is that even if he likes Bailey more as his long-term backstop, he should probably at least give Bart a shot to improve his value in 2021 if he plays half a season in San Fran.


17.) 28 Nov 2020 10:34:46
Of course it's ambitious. But the Giants were in a tie-breaker for a playoff spot in 2020. Yes, those were expanded playoffs, but nonetheless, they had a much better year than predicted.

I don't *think* Zaidi makes the Bart-for-Snell trade. I think Tampa Bay would accept it in nothing flat. Bart was the #2 pick for a reason, and Tampa can certainly do wonders if they can help work on his swing, which is something they are very good at.

The Rays catching situation has went from comical to disastrous. And I'd imagine Neander and Silverman would jump at the ability to get a legit catcher in there for the next 5-6 years.

"All that would take is Vaughn + 2 or 3 40 FV prospects. "

Okay, so this changes the conversation really quick, since you removed Kopech and all. If you're Erik Neander, and you get the following offers, which do you take?

Vaughn (#13 MLB prospect, still in High-A to AA) + 2-3 40 FV prospects

OR

Bart (#11 MLB prospect, MLB ready) + 2-3 40 FV prospects?

Not knowing how the Rays view each prospect exactly, Bart is higher ranked, closer to the majors, and fills a position of need.

If you think the Rays would take the first package, then I just don't think you're being objective about this.

Whether it makes sense for SF is a moot point. The Rays have ZERO catchers on their 40-man roster with an AB in the majors. They'll take the package with a catcher first. In fact, I'd wager if that catcher were only ranked #65, and the rest were 40 FV prospects, the Rays would take it before taking Vaughn.

Trade packages with guys like Jeffers (MIN), Kirk or Jansen (TOR), Smith or Ruiz (LAD), Alvarez (NYM), Campusano (SD) would be preferable over a position like 1B/ DH, where they can find production for pennies on the dollar.


18.) 01 Dec 2020 21:25:20
Well, now, see you didn't have 2-3 40 FV prospects in your Bart for Snell deal, so that's not what I was comparing. You had Bart for Snell straight up, which would never happen. You changed the conversation.

Again, Blake Snell is at worst a top-20 pitcher in baseball on a 3-year, $39 million contract. A catcher that just stuck out almost 40% of the time alone is not enough.

As the Rays are serious contenders, they likely wouldn't want to put Bart, who is clearly still learning the ropes of hitting in MLB but also all the things that have to do with catching, behind the dish on opening day. World Series contenders usually don't prefer rookies behind the plate -- especially to execute the pitching system that the Rays deploy.

Zaidi, Kapler, and the Giants org did Joey Bart a huge disservice by bringing him up too early, and they'll have to hope that doesn't' screw with his development process. The guy had less than 100 PAs above high-A. Not good.

Bart is not any more MLB ready than Vaughn is - but I can confidently say that Vaughn would have easily bested Bart's whopping 70 wRC+ in 2020. He hit like you'd expect a catcher belonging in A-ball would hit in MLB. Do they Rays want a guy who's swing has to be "worked on", or a guy whose swing is fine for their cheap ace? Makes you think.

"Silverman would jump at the ability to get a legit catcher in there for the next 5-6 years. "

Sure, but I'm sure they'd like a legit potential .300/ .400/ .500 hitter too. Packages headlined by Bart and Vaughn wouldn't be that far off, but Vaughn would be able to help TB a lot more in 2021 than Bart would. With the money saved from Snell, they could easily go get Jason Castro and Tyler Flowers with that $10 million -- veteran catcher that contending teams usually prefer. Could TB prefer Bart to Vaughn for the reasons you outlined? Yeah they could, but Zaidi better be ready to cough up some other good prospects while he's still in the thick of a rebuild, which let's be honest, he shouldn't and won't do.

"Trade packages with guys like Jeffers (MIN), Kirk or Jansen (TOR), Smith or Ruiz (LAD), Alvarez (NYM), Campusano (SD) would be preferable over a position like 1B/ DH, where they can find production for pennies on the dollar. "

Another patented Statbook comment that is just beyond wild. I live for these because I can see you typing this so confidently, but I guess you forget to think about it? A The Rays take a package headlined by Alejandro Kirk over Andrew Vaughn? LOL! I have to remember that, by you're own admissions, you're merely a troll.

They Rays also have Ronaldo Hernandez on their 40-man, one of the best catch and throw catchers in the minors, so you're wrong there as well. The Rays will want to add 2 MLB-ready catchers to their tight 40-man, not Bart who likely is sent to Durham, or maybe even Montgomery.

But your comment about 1B/ DH not being a prime position is exactly why I included Kopech here, and again, if I'm Hahn, I still do this because it allows me to still sign Springer and win the offseason. The Sox's biggest window is the next 3-5 years - Snell fits it almost perfectly.

IMO you're underrating Blake Snell here, especially with the leverage the Rays would have in these discussions. Any team that gets him would only have to pay him $10.5 million in 2021. The Braves just gave Drew Smyly (who I like) $11 million! In this market, he's extremely valuable.


19.) 02 Dec 2020 08:37:49
Honest question, Chi Sox, why does all of this bother you so much?

I'm just curious as to why you display such a level of vitriol for anyone who deviates from your opinion of them. Is there some sort of deep, personal connection to them that you get EXTREMELY OFFENDED when someone suggests that maybe they aren't as great as you think they are?

We've had lengthy conversations about silly topics, mostly involving the White Sox, and for the most part, I enjoy them. I really do. For as much as I enjoy getting you riled up, I also enjoy hearing your perspectives and learning a thing or two. If I didn't enjoy this, I wouldn't partake in it.

But there seems to be some elements here that show you're not able to be an adult about this. Again, it's not a character flaw if someone doesn't share the same 99th Percentile scouting report on Andrew Vaughn as you do.

You take it deeply personal. To the extent that you've made MULTIPLE posts calling me out, personally, because I dared disagree with you. They weren't even posts where you gloated, but instead, they were simply over differences of opinion.

If you find that one's character is in question because they disagree with your opinion, it may be time to re-evaluate your priorities and take some time off.


 

 

06 Nov 2020 16:27:31
White Sox Offseason

- Sign Kevin Gausman - (3/$55 million)
- Sign Jose Quintana - (2/$26 million)
- Sign Robbie Grossman - (2/$16 million)
- Sign Sandy Leon - (1/$1 million)
- Sign Jarrod Dyson (MiLB deal)

- Extend Lucas Giolito (4/$48 million) + $17 million club option for 2025

- Trade Micker Adolfo & Andrew Dalquist to Pittsburgh for RHP Richard Rodriguez

$145 million payroll

Chi Sox

1.) 06 Nov 2020 17:34:25
Lineup vs RHP - Opening Day

Anderson - SS
Grandal - C
Abreu - 1B
Jimenez - LF
Moncada - 3B
Robert - CF
Grossman - RF
Madrigal - 2B
Collins - DH (Eventually Vaughn)

vs. LHP

Anderson - SS
Grandal - C
Abreu - 1B
Jimenez - DH
Moncada - 3B
Robert - CF
Grossman - RF
Engel - LF
Madrigal - 2B

Bench:

L. Garcia
Engel
2 of: Beckham, Mendick, Leon, Dyson

Rotation:

1. Giolito
2. Keuchel (L)
3. Gausman
4. Quintana (L)
5. Cease/ Dunning/ Kopech/ Lopez/ Lambert - Potentially Crochet by the end of the season

Bullpen:

Bummer (L)
Heuer
Foster
Marshall
Rodriguez
Fry (L)
Cordero
Lopez/ Crochet (L) / Cease/ Burdi/ Kopech.


2.) 07 Nov 2020 00:39:25
In all seriousness, considering Gausman's comments regarding his desire to stay in San Francisco, I would be massively surprised if he signs anywhere else.

But, if he does turn down the QO and leave San Francisco, 3/ 55 is a deal that would certainly make him feel better about the decision.

But when a player is that forthright about his desire to stay somewhere, and the team makes it clear they want him back, it's a safe bet to assume he goes back to that team.


3.) 07 Nov 2020 14:46:58
In all seriousness that's an overpay for Quintana. The guy has been worse since he got traded to the Cubs. The $13 million a year would be better suited else where.

If they are really wanting to bring him back. I'd say a 1/ $7 million with a 2nd year mutual option.


4.) 07 Nov 2020 15:35:37
Quintana will make more than 1/ 7, a lot more. I actually think Chi Sox might be trying to get Quintana on the cheap side. He'll likely aim for 3-4 years, and I think someone will give the years.

Quintana is still a very good pitcher, but he's certainly not what he once was. In a weak FA market, he'll have some competition to sign him.


5.) 11 Nov 2020 04:13:59
New question: how difficult will it be for Chicago to sign free agents? There will be, and already are, free agents who have publicly expressed concerns over the La Russa signing (Stroman) .

I'd imagine there are others who will choose to be more diplomatic and not publicize their disgust, but instead just not sign with them.

For as much as I enjoy harassing White Sox fans on here, the TLR signing is actually saddening. Knowing about his issues and just not caring should make people angry.

And if it causes one major free agent they target to refuse to sign there, fans have the right to be livid.


 

 

 

Chi Sox's talk posts with other poster's replies to Chi Sox's talk posts

 

26 Jul 2021 14:02:10
Interesting package that Pittsburgh got for Frazier. First reaction is "wow, that's light" - 1 40 and 2 35+s per what FanGraphs had preseason.

But from what Heyman reported, Pittsburgh loved Marcano (wanted him in the Musgrove deal). Ultra-high contact guy, but only has a 101 wRC+ in AAA this year. I guess they see his 90th percentile outcome as what Frazier is now, but more than likely he's a utility type.

Milliano has 59 punchies in 30 innings in A-ball but also 25 walks. Only 21 y/o, must have exciting stuff and an interesting relief prospect.

Suwinski has really broken out at AA this year and is only 22.

If this was the best offer they got for Frazier, than teams must be scared of a BABIP fall off for Frazier, with Pitt included because they could've just held him and dealt in the offseason.

Still, with versatility, offensive and defensive value, and the extra season of control, I would've thought they got more. He's not going to be a .325 hitter, but launch angle optimization is a true talent in my opinion. .290-.300 with an .800 OPS is what I think San Diego is getting for maybe 2 40s and a 40+.

Chi Sox

1.) 26 Jul 2021 18:41:41
I think most teams probably saw straight through Frazier's season.

Unless, of course, Pittsburgh feels like Marcano is some 60-grade prospect.


 

 

17 Nov 2020 17:19:42
Cool to see run-of-the-mill GM Rick Hahn finish 2nd in MLB's Executive of the Year award, only behind LA's Andrew Freidman and right in front of Tampa's Erik Neander.

Very nice recognition to back up Sporting News' choice that had him #1.

Chi Sox

1.) 18 Nov 2020 17:30:18
The White Sox:

Second best in their own division (the worst division mind you)
Second best baseball team in their own city.

I guess, if you're a White Sox fan, it's fun to be second place! At least you're aware of where your team stands.


2.) 18 Nov 2020 18:04:02
So we have:

1. "Second best in their own division" - Maybe, but that's because the Twins are a solid team and the Indians are very, very well ran, especially given their budget constraints. The White Sox will be the betting favorite in 2021 in the AL central.

2. " (the worst division mind you) " - If you think the AL central is worse than the AL West, NL Central or NL East, you simply do not know baseball. Even the NL West only has 2 good teams - The AL central has 3 good teams and 2 other with promising futures. The NL West has the Giants, DBacks, and Rockies - woof.

3. "Second best baseball team in their own city. " - In no way are the current White Sox worse than the current Cubs. It's just a moronic statement at this point.

LOL -- wrong, wrong, wrong.

Why wasn't Zaidi ahead of Hahn, or even nominated, in any of these awards?!?!?

OMG, HAVE THEY NOT HEARD ABOUT DARIN RUF!?!?!?!?!?!


3.) 30 Nov 2020 18:19:15
Man, you're really bothered by Darin Ruf's success aren't you? Could you imagine how much BETTER the White Sox would have been if their GM was smart enough to bring in under-valued veterans on MiLB contracts to help contribute?

Instead, Rick Hahn GAVE UP a decent prospect and paid 5.5M to an outfielder they very likely won't even tender a contract to come Wednesday.

Darin Ruf outperformed two starters in Chicago last season. Those two starters cost Rick Hahn 17M. Combined, they produced -0.1 WAR. That's cost the White Sox NEGATIVE 19M in value, not including the value of Steele Walker.

Ruf cost the Giants the league minimum, and produced an adjusted 1.9 WAR. As a backup. In just 100 PAs. That's 14.6M in value, or almost 34M in value more than TWO White Sox starters.

Read that: Starters. People Rick Hahn felt were good enough to get a combined 330 PAs (almost 900 in a full season) on his team last season.

Darin Ruf was a BENCH player (read: he wasn't even good enough to unseat the existing starter) who objectively outperformed two White Sox starters by 1900% in just 30% of their total PAs.

Imagine if Darin Ruf took the place of Edwin Encarnacion or Nomar Mazara. Maybe, just MAYBE, Rick Hahn would have won 2 playoff games instead of just one.

The truth is, Bill, Rick Hahn would commit any sort of federal crime to get the kind of value that he could out of players like Darin Ruf, even if just off the bench. But as we both know, he's not astute enough to do so.

Maybe you can find a way to blame his lack of Darin Rufs on Jerry Reinsdorf?


4.) 01 Dec 2020 06:47:17
Hahn found James McCann, who only had the highest WAR/ 600 of literally any player in baseball 2020. So yeah, Hahn's found a Darin Ruf.

The difference is Hahn also built the best young core in baseball. Zaidi has not. Be a man and give respect where respect is due.


5.) 01 Dec 2020 14:55:49
It took Rick Hahn literally eight years to build a core, and it took him that exact amount of time to win ONE playoff game. Eight years. Don't bring that "3 years" nonsense. He has been the GM for 8 years. We're not discounting 5 years of Hahn's failures simply because they aren't convenient to your argument.

Zaidi came into San Francisco inheriting a really bad baseball team. They were really bad because it turns out, winning THREE World Series in a decade is really hard on a franchise's future. Heck, even winning just one is tough. Ask the Astros, Cubs, or Red Sox. The Giants went through that process three times.

Then they had a GM who handed out tons of prospects for aging or bad players. Evans traded Luis Castillo for Casey McGehee. Yeah, even the Giants had their Shields-for-Tatis trade. Only difference is the Giants knew to fire their GM for it. He traded Bryan Reynolds for Andrew McCutchen.

The Giants could DFA someone and know, almost 100%, that they would be able to keep that player. This was what Zaidi inherited.

He inherited a farm system that had Joey Bart, Marco Luciano, and Heliot Ramos and STILL was a bottom 5 farm system. They are expected, by almost every prospect outlet, to be considered a top 10, some will even rank them in the top 5. And Zaidi has barely added anything.

From bottom 5 to the top 5 in farm systems in 3 seasons. Remarkable improvement at every level. The Giants are, by every indication, a better team in 2021 than they were in 2019. And to think, aside from Bart's probably-too-early promotion in 2020, he still hasn't gotten to add in his core of young talent yet. This is only year three.

How was Rick Hahn's team in his third year? They finished with 76 games, despite having made trades for Samardzija, signing David Robertson, Zach Duke and Melky Cabrera. They were TRYING to win games in his third year, and still didn't.

It took him realizing they weren't actually going to win many ball games to bail on his failed strategy and start selling off pieces left and right. Good for him, I guess. (Don't blame Reinsdorf. Hahn had a pretty good roster and still couldn't win games. )

Who was Zaidi going to trade? Bumgarner? Nope. No one wanted him. Smith? Maybe. He got all of Melancon's contract off the books, got Dubon for Pomeranz, and a load of organizational depth for Sam Dyson.

So, instead, what Zaidi did (and is doing) is finding huge value in guys on dirt cheap contracts. Yastrzemski, Ruf, Solano, Dickerson. Jason Vosler looks like he could be a fit right now.

It took Hahn several years to even start the rebuild. He traded players he was developing and utilizing since 2013 and '14, respectively. Now, EIGHT seasons later, it's finally paying off for him. Bully for him.

Meanwhile, you're asking Zaidi to do in 3-4 years what it took Hahn to do in eight.

Hahn, by every objective standard came into his role in Chicago with the White Sox in a better spot than where Zaidi came into San Francisco. The White Sox came off an 85 win season when Rick Hahn took over. Zaidi inherited a 73-win Giants team (64 wins the season prior) .


6.) 01 Dec 2020 20:19:52
"How was Rick Hahn's team in his third year? They finished with 76 games, despite having made trades for Samardzija, signing David Robertson, Zach Duke and Melky Cabrera. "

Yeah it's truly amazing that the team only won 76 games after the tremendous headlining acquisitions of superstars Melky Cabrera and Zach Duke. That's my point.

Although, 76 wins is a good current 2021 projection for Zaidi's Giants. So he may be right on track for a playoff berth in 2027.

I'm not criticizing what Zaidi has done given what he has to work with. You just refuse to give credit to Hahn because I'm the one defending him. He's built a core that every GM strives to build and has the team is a great spot financially. To say Zaidi isn't trying to do exactly what Hahn has done over the past 4 years is just idiotic. But you continue to die on this hill for some reason.

The fact of the matter is, Hahn has done it. Zaidi, through no fault of his own, has yet to do it because he hasn't had enough time. If you don't understand/ believe that Hahn's all-along plan started when they traded Sale in Dec. 2016 - when he and Rinesdorf have blatantly said so, then that's your own cognitive dissonance and I really don't care.


7.) 01 Dec 2020 21:11:31
No, I refuse to give credit to Rick Hahn because he has done literally nothing remarkable or noteworthy.

So he traded away a couple of good players for some really good prospects? WOW. NO GM HAS EVER DONE THAT.


8.) 01 Dec 2020 21:20:48
And speaking of cognitive dissonance, acting like Rick Hahn's efforts and plan started in 2016/ 17 is patently ridiculous.

There were layers of groundwork he had laid prior to that offseason. Scouting, player development, coaching, R&D, etc., all of which he had in place PRIOR to December 2016 in Chicago.

It's not like he woke up one morning in November 2016 and said, "alright, enough jacking around, let's operate our plan now. " The legwork was being done well before then. For several seasons. While Hahn may not have been "allowed" to make the moves he wanted (I think you're making a pathetic excuse, but whatevs), he still had things going. In fact, every foundational piece he needed for the rebuild (minor league staff, instructional staff, etc. ) was in existence prior to the Sale trade.

And if Hahn waited until he traded Chris Sale to actually become a decent GM, then he has serious character flaws, and I won't credit him for that. My guess is that's not true and you're just blowing smoke out of your you-know-where.

You're right, though, Zaidi hasn't had enough time. But in the limited time he's had, Zaidi has done tremendous work. It's quite evident—both by simple observation and your own acknowledgement—that Zaidi is working harder and accomplishing more in his first two seasons than Rick Hahn did in his.

Zaidi isn't trying to do what "Hahn" did. He's trying to do what every team does: build a core and win championships. Almost like what the Giants built that won them three in five years.

That's the problem here: you present Rick Hahn as some revolutionary and innovator. He's done literally nothing new or interesting. He has successfully built a core of young players. Congrats, he did what literally every GM to win a World Series in the past 10 seasons has done. Only difference is he hasn't won a WS, and I'd bet you dollars to donuts he doesn't win one at all. And you'll more than find a way to blame Reinsdorf.


9.) 02 Dec 2020 01:40:59
"And speaking of cognitive dissonance, acting like Rick Hahn's efforts and plan started in 2016/ 17 is patently ridiculous. "

Buddy, this is not my theory. This is corroborated by *literally* Jerry Rinesdorf and Rick Hahn. Their own mouths. It's public knowledge. I'm telling you this for I think the 4th time. Slow down and read.

"There were layers of groundwork he had laid prior to that offseason. Scouting, player development, coaching, R&D, etc., all of which he had in place PRIOR to December 2016 in Chicago. " -- " In fact, every foundational piece he needed for the rebuild (minor league staff, instructional staff, etc. ) was in existence prior to the Sale trade.
"

Huh? Who exactly are you talking about? Why are you acting like you have in-depth knowledge of the White Sox R&D department pre-2016? What on earth are you talking about? Stop acting like you have any idea whatsoever about the foundational pieces of the White Sox minor league staffs. lol, there has been a complete turnover in pretty much every department you identified. Quit grasping at straws.

"No, I refuse to give credit to Rick Hahn because he has done literally nothing remarkable or noteworthy. "

Ask Mariner, Phillie, Angel and Ranger fans, for instance, if Rick Hahn hasn't anything "remarkable or noteworthy. " He's extended more pre-arb players than anyone I can ever remember and he really started that strategy. Now teams little by little will follow (as you've already seen), especially if this core goes on to achieve sustainable success. Zaidi would do the same thing. The only problem is the Giants don't have a single young MLB player that has proven worthy of an extension. Not a single player.

"So he traded away a couple of good players for some really good prospects? WOW. NO GM HAS EVER DONE THAT. "

For the 1 billionth time -- He signed/ drafted well, developed them well, extended them early, traded them at the peaks of their value, and secured top-end talent for them (them being Sale, Quintana, and Eaton) by not missing on a single big-trade once he was given the keys to the car. That's every GM's dream scenario, Nate -- Even christ himself, Farhan Zaidi.

"Zaidi isn't trying to do what "Hahn" did. He's trying to do what every team does: build a core and win championships. "

Really? Every team just magically builds elite cores and wins championships on the regular? Wow, who would have ever thought it would be that easy?

Zaidi is trying to do exactly what Hahn has done, or at least 75% of it (odds are the Giants core won't be nearly as good. ) You can't disagree with this. There is no other way around it. He wants to build a core as good as Rick Hahn did. He is tirelessly working to do what Rick Hahn did, and it's looking like he's pretty good at his job. But even as good as it looks so far, it doesn't matter until he puts a team on the field that's about as good of a team as you can build given your resources -- this is what Hahn has done. After this offseason, assuming they make some solid additions, Hahn can kick back, put his feet up, and rely on his All-Star, MVP, Batting title, gold glove, silver slugger, Cy young Candidate, rookie-of the-year candidate players to win ball games. It's all a GM can do at the end of the day.

In reality, no one cares about a rebuilding GM's first 2 seasons if their efforts don't culminate into playoff appearances and *hopefully* pennants and world series. You're in the stage with Zaidi where you're excited about the prospect of things working out, but there's no guarantee. But when you're a fan of a currently mediocre-at-best team, that's really all you can do -- be excited about the future and not things that are presently true. Don't worry, we've all been there.


10.) 02 Dec 2020 08:18:19
In full recap, here's why I don't buy what you're selling. You're the salesman that takes a good product and then tries to completely oversell it.

It's not enough that Rick Hahn has a good team. His team (which just started winning some games, mind you) are now on par with the World Champion Dodgers!

It's not enough that Rick Hahn developed a good team. He must be emulated by every aspiring General Manager if they want success!

It's not enough that the White Sox have an okay farm system. Nope, they can get highly valuable players for 40+ FV prospects! And of course, there's not a team in baseball that can match any trade the White Sox put forward!

Do you not see how maybe, just in a small way, you're totally overselling all of this?

Please be reminded, the White Sox just had their first winning season in nearly a decade. That's it. They didn't win a playoff series. They've done nothing in the way of having success fans will remember for ages.

So, in a way, you've become THAT fan on this site. You know who it is. It's the fan that gets all boisterous over the tiniest morsel of success, mostly because of all the pent up anxiety over your team being so putrid for so long. We get it, we've all been there.

As a fan who has seen his team have a run of success that may not be replicated for a long time: here's some advice. If you burn out all your baseball acquaintances now, it'll be less fun should your team actually win. Even the Dodger fans in my family were excited for me each of the three World Series. Mostly because I didn't act boisterous about the Giants' success, or try to belittle other teams in the process.

Temper your comparisons. Temper your expectations. And maybe then, you can get others around you to appreciate what is happening in Chicago with you.


11.) 02 Dec 2020 16:30:46
It's hilarious, really. The White Sox have had ONE season in a decade with a winning record. And you're trying to tell a Giants fan, whose team has won THREE WORLD SERIES, in a span of five years, what it means and feels like to win a few games and have a great team.

Again, I get it, you're so used to seeing the White Sox be absolutely terrible, and used to watching the Giants do nothing but win World Series, that the moment the switch gets flipped, you were ready with your cute little arguments.

Now that your team isn't baseball's perennial punching bag, you're trying to run around and fight back. It's actually adorable.

But this is one got me all the lulz:

"that's really all you can do—be excited about the future and not things that are presently true. "

The truth is, Bernie, the White Sox haven't done a single thing in baseball. They didn't even win their division last year. Or win a playoff series. Not. One. Thing.

Literally, the ONLY thing White Sox fans have is an excitement about the near future. What present reality do they have? That they are a contending team?

Seriously. This is something you actually said. On a website. As a White Sox fan.

The White Sox have done nothing to date that is noteworthy or that will be remembered in baseball history. Literally zero things. ALL you have is future excitement. And worse, you have nothing to look back on and have profound memories of. So everything about your fandom hinges on this working. All of it.

10 years from now, no one, besides you probably, will remember or care if the White Sox finished first in their division, or if they got to the ALDS in 2021. And they certainly won't care that the White Sox built a great, young core. It all hinges on them winning World Series. Which they haven't done since 2005 (and even then, most people forget they won it then) .

Again, I get it. You're so used to seeing the Giants be successful. It probably bothers you. Your own GMs would do literally any. thing. to get even one of those titles, let alone three, in five years.

THAT'S what Rick Hahn is trying to re-create. He's emulating a Giants team that ran with a core of very good young players for several years and with a shoo-in HOF manager who was one of the best bullpen operators the game has ever seen.

Rick Hahn is trying to emulate Theo Epstein, who nailed almost every draft pick and got 99th percentile performance out of his entire team, almost all at once.

He's trying to emulate Andrew Friedman, who has developed a carousel of talent that is constantly bringing in new, young talent and replacing old talent.

The difference between those guys and Rick Hahn? You know what it is?

It's success.

Perhaps, let's see Rick Hahn taste that success before crowning him the king of baseball, shall we?


12.) 02 Dec 2020 18:22:27
"What present reality do they have? That they are a contending team? "

Yes, precisely.

The White Sox were making history pretty much every week in 2020. Not only are they presently very good, they're one of the most exciting teams in baseball to watch and will likely be for the rest of this decade.

The thing is, you're correct in that Hahn is trying to do exactly what Theo and Friedman did in terms of winning it all. But you can't win it all before you do what Rick Hahn has done. You're acting like building an elite core is common place. It absolutely is not.

What Hahn is trying to do is build a championship team that not only wins one, but can compete for rings for the better part of a decade. So, he's revolutionized the pre-arb extension idea and is trying to avoid what Theo Epstein (twice) couldn't do, and that's essentially bankrupting the franchise with bad deals that, once the core gets older and their arbitration prices get heftier, can't recover from - forcing major sell offs.

Theo did that in Boston, clearly didn't learn from it, and did the exact same thing on the North side.

The Giants over the last decade would be a fine example for Hahn in terms of what you can do with a great core. But even they sustained a top-10 payroll in all of those championship seasons, something that, depending on JR's willingness to spend, may not be a reality for the White Sox when they're at their peak.

No one is "crowning him the king of baseball". All I'm doing is making the case that Rick Hahn deserves a good amount of credit for his successes so far. Some how, I'm not allowed to commend Hahn for building a playoff team with an extremely bright future, but you're allowed to hold Zaidi to the highest esteem bc he turned the Darin Rufs and Dovovan Soloanos of the world into a .500 season.


13.) 02 Dec 2020 19:50:08
Salvador, you're doing more than commending him. Commending him would be saying, "he built a great team and the future looks bright. " If that's all you said, I would have never disagreed.

Instead, it was things like "Zaidi aspires to be like Rick Hahn. " And "Zaidi will be lucky if he accomplishes half of what Rick Hahn did. " You think GMs are looking around baseball and saying, "man, that Rick Hahn! He found a way to win one playoff game! Let's replicate everything he's doing! " I have read literally every interview Farhan Zaidi has done with any of the major Giants beat writers. Many GM names have come up as "examples" or "inspiration". Not once has Zaidi publicly said a word about Rick Hahn. Trust me, he's interested in following the GM who fired a Manager of the Year candidate.

And no, Rick Hahn didn't "revolutionize" the pre-arb idea. That idea could not be any more false. Does he utilize it? Of course he does. So do other teams, but it was happening well before Hahn was even a GM.

2007- Matt Cain got a 4-year, $9M deal, buying out his arbitration years, before re-negotiating in 2010 to a 3-year, $27.25M deal, which was comically team-friendly.
2012- Pablo Sandoval got a 3-year, $17.15M deal to buy out his arbitration years.
2013- Giants bought out Bumgarner's arbitration years with a 5-year, $35M deal.

That's just a few examples, I'd imagine there are several dozen you can cite before Hahn even came onto the scene.

And this is the issue: you're not just commending Hahn. You're actually attributing something to him and acting like he was the one who began doing this. He didn't.

Is Rick Hahn doing this? Yes, and he does so more than most GMs. Is he doing it really well? To this point, yes. Was he the one to "revolutionize" this idea? Not at all.

He's building his team in a way that makes sense to the context he's in. Good for him. But he's not, in any way, shape, or form doing something no one has ever done before. And to this point, his team has not won a single game that matters. No one cares about them making "history pretty much every week" when they can't beat the Athletics in a 3-game series. Again, except you.


14.) 02 Dec 2020 19:56:06
And lastly, Rick Hahn will be lucky to win a single championship. That's not an insult. It's incredibly difficult and it takes a lot of breaks to work in your favor to do so.

Look at the Tigers. They had a great core and spent significant capital—in terms of lengthy contracts and prospects—to try and win. They failed. The same is true of the Rangers.

Both of those teams are still dealing with the aftermaths of making attempts to win and not doing so.

Then, there's teams that DID win. The Cubs, Astros, Red Sox, Royals, Nationals, Giants. None of them are in envious spots right now. The Astros and Cubs have no money to work with. The Royals have a long way to go. The Nationals have no farm system. The Giants were left with bloated contracts on aging players. The Red Sox are a mess.

This is the cost of winning a championship. Remember, the Giants won THREE of them. So take the cost and multiply it by three, plus the other years (2016) where they tried to contend and failed to make it to the World Series.

If you're so lucky, you better hunker down and be prepared for some rough years ahead of you. Even if you don't win, it'll still be bleak once that window slams shut.

The good news for Chicago is, Rick Hahn knows what it's like to have his teams lose A LOT of baseball games. So at least he'll be in familiar territory.


15.) 12 Jul 2021 03:32:29
Good lord, this is 10x funnier reading this in July 2021 than it was when you first put this out.

Hilarious, really.


 

 

12 Dec 2019 16:46:37
Interesting chuck of Craig Edwards' FanGraphs article on David Price's trade value.

"Benintendi's value then sits in the $50 million range above his expected pay. Packaging Benintendi with Price and maybe $5 million per year is pretty close to a fair deal. Is that a deal that makes sense for the Red Sox? That depends on how important it is to Boston to get below the competitive balance tax threshold.
A Red Sox team without Price and Benintendi would be cheaper and not as good, but the team would still be a contender"

I proposed a total of $21 million added from Boston. Edwards thinks $15 Million would get the job done. He also doesn't believe any significant prospects would be going the other way.

But this was a terrible idea when I proposed it. And it's also worth noting that Edwards recognizes surplus value in trade discussions, and then how that can change given their organizational desire to get under the luxury tax threshold. Some on here treat the idea as some sort of conspiracy. "It's not a robust system", as Statbook told us.

It doesn't make as much sense now that they acquired Mazara, however.

Chi Sox

1.) 21 Dec 2019 23:51:50
It's a terrible idea even when Craig Edwards suggests it. The Red Sox aren't giving up Andrew Benintendi just to get rid of David Price. If we go by the "surplus value" argument, wouldn't Benintendi at an estimated 5M be a better value than what they can find on the open market? They'll have to fill that OF spot if they intend on being competitive. So, who can provide around 2-3 WAR (he's projected at 2.6) for only 5M next season? To sign that kind of production in the OF requires a Marcell Ozuna/ Castellanos type player, and that'll likely require a 75M contract, or around 15-18M a year. which is between 25-30% of the "value".

Also, Craig Edwards makes absolutely zero mention of what kind of return would be necessary for Price/ Benintendi. You likely inferred it and think it's true, but it's not mentioned, unless I clearly missed something while reading it.

It's an idea that maybe makes sense when you throw some numbers into the mix, but it makes zero sense in reality and there's just one trade in recent years that resembles this one: Cano/ Diaz. And even that trade netted two elite prospects, and Price/ Benintendi are FAR more valuable than Cano/ Diaz.

Finally, it's cute that I take so much space in your head. Should I start paying rent? I'm feeling charitable and want to help someone clearly in need.


2.) 23 Dec 2019 05:12:33
No, it's really not about you having space in my head as much as you'd hope. The fact that you previously literally told me to cite FanGraphs as my source as if that would legitimize my claim, then told me a trade idea was terrible, only to have a writer for FanGraphs have essentially the same idea. Quite ironic.

Price/ Benny would not get nearly as much as Cano/ Diaz. Not even close. Why? Because Boston has much more of an incentive to move Price's money than Seattle did with Cano's. Boston's window is closing; Seattle realized their window was never open. Seattle didn't have a Mookie Betts of their own that they had to try and make re-signable. It's the same rationale as to why adding a 5-win player is more valuable to an 88-win team than to a 78-win team.


3.) 23 Dec 2019 12:59:50
Every time I think you can't get any denser, you write another response.

I told you to quote Fangraphs because you literally wrote the same thing from their website verbatim (regarding xFIP regression), not because I think it makes you sound more legitimate.

Finally, I wish to take up zero space in your head. I'm not into you that way. But it's evident that you're clearly infatuated by me. If you're not, you wouldn't go out of your way to make specific posts calling me out.

You don't make these posts for people you don't care about.


4.) 23 Dec 2019 14:10:20
I didn't go out of my way at all. This literally fell into my lap. Didn't mean to call you out. I just found amusement in the irony.

You just tend to not take it well when someone else on here knows what they are talking about, especially if they don't agree with you. I tend to enjoy the back and forth because that's literally the intention of this forum, no? Lighten up a bit.

I happen to think this is not a terrible trade, but you are allowed to disagree. The creative ones are the best ones to debate. Precedent is important, yes, but I think we will continue to see some lacking instances in baseball over the next decade (as we already have) in transactions and roster construction.

If Chaim Bloom's (man, what a name) plan has any scenario in which Mookie Betts is not part of the team long-term, I see that as a grave mistake. You move money around to retain him, not move him in order to get your finances aligned. He's a top-5 player in baseball in the heart of his prime. The Boston Red Sox of all teams have no excuse to feel the need that they have to trade him. It's crazy in my opinion. That's would be my motivation to move Price's contract, even if I have to move Benintendi who is not only entering arbitration himself, but hasn't exactly performed as they once thought he would, nor does he have the signals to suggest a major ascension is forthcoming. They can throw Martinez in left, for at least their home games, and also be in the position to offer their homegrown superstar the extension he rightfully deserves.


5.) 23 Dec 2019 17:50:37
It’s not a terrible idea. It’s a laughably stupid idea. If the Red Sox want to complete, trading Benintendi away when they have literally zero decent option to replace him (and none at his salary bs. production) .

I don’t think Benintendi is very good, but the Red Sox have absolutely no one in their system ready or capable of matching his production.

By the way, this is at least the third time you’ve went out of your way to call me out on this site. It’s okay, I’m not offended.

But at least just acknowledge that I’m clearly in your head and we can move along.


6.) 23 Dec 2019 18:45:43
They can find a league average hitter for pretty cheap. You agree that he's nothing special, but then act like there isn't an abundance of 100 wRC+ hitters that could choose from either via free agency or the trade market. They can go all out for 2020, or set themselves up nicely for 2020 and even beyond if they can retain Betts. You're judging this trade on its own - you have to look at the bigger picture here. We can go back and forth on what the required return would be, but this is not an outlandish idea even in the slightest. Actually, there are reports that it even been discussed.

With all of the proposals on this site, the fact that this one is laughably stupid to you is, well, laughably stupid. It's your need for supreme dominance on here that's causing you to think this way. I can speak for most on here and say that it gets old really, really quickly. Again, lighten up. You are not in anyone's head on this anonymous baseball rumors forum. Hahaha.


7.) 23 Dec 2019 22:16:49
Okay, I'll concede one thing: The Red Sox could very well trade Benintendi + Price. I could see it. But it won't be without "any significant prospects would be going the other way. " It'll be a lot like the Cano/ Diaz trade, and likely a greater return.

And every report, especially those from Passan and Rosenthal have indicated that while teams have asked, it doesn't seem likely the Red Sox would trade from the major league roster just to move Price.

Mark Feinsand even wrote this, regarding discussion between the Reds and Red Sox:

"One scenario that has been floated in recent weeks would have the Red Sox attaching a young player -- Andrew Benintendi's name has been mentioned often -- to Price in order to dump the pitcher's contract. A source said that concept has not been considered by Boston's front office -- nor will it be, especially not with Benintendi. "

Chad Jennings of The Athletic has said Bloom has resisted the idea of attaching a prospect to sweeten the deal. This was the quote from Bloom: "I don’t think we’d ever want to rule anything out, but so much of what we’re always going to be trying to accomplish, but certainly now, is to make sure we have as strong a farm system as possible. ”

So based on every indication, it's not even a factor the Red Sox have or will consider, unless of course they are completely blown away by a deal. It also doesn't seem like a team with almost no MLB depth would consider dealing from what he already has, especially if trying to compete.

Your insistence that this trade wouldn't require anything significant is the most laughable part of it. The Red Sox aren't just handing over young, controllable talent for nothing. There's almost zero precedence for such a suggestion. Show me even one trade in the last 3 years in which a good, controllable MLB player was "thrown in" for an expensive player, and in which the other team gave up nothing for the return. Just one. I'd imagine you can't.

And finally, I'll turn it to you: lighten up. I'm not the one posting entire posts to try and target an individual on this site. If you want anyone to believe I'm not in your head, maybe don't post an entire post regarding something I've said. Just admit I'm in your head. It's good for the soul.


8.) 24 Dec 2019 15:05:31
It’s not hard to see why a Price/ Benintendi package would not get as much as Cano/ Diaz. In fact, the return would not be close. For one, the necessity to move the money, and also how much more valuable Diaz was than what Benny is. The return then hinges on how much money Boston is willing to eat - not Benintendi. For this trade to have its desired effect, I'd want Chicago to take a majority of it.
So, if Bloom doesn’t want to attach prospects, how else would they move $70+ million owed to a 35 year old pitcher? Probably attaching a player that they can easily replace and that their window doesn't depend on. Any way you design it, they're not getting top-end talent back.

Again, I’m allowed to come up with a trade that doesn’t have an absolute identical precedent to go off of. New, creative trades happen every year, hence the Cano trade last year. If moving Benintendi means they can keep Mookie Betts, I wouldn’t hesitate. The move doesn’t compromise 2020 and puts them in a much better position overall.

I guess you are thriving off the attention you are getting from me. You want me to admit it in writing for your own sanity. Are you OK? Hate to burst your little bubble, but the post was unfortunately not dedicated to you. I’ll refrain from directly including your username in the future because of what it clearly does to you emotionally. It was a sentance, not the whole post - sorry. I was commenting on my previous idea being backed up by a writer that I feel knows what’s he’s talking about given his past work at FanGraphs.

You weren’t the only one to disagree with this trade proposal. When you say something about how surplus values is not a robust system, and then I read article after article about how teams stress the importance of it, it’s funny. But then again, we’ve established that you aren’t really an expert on what exactly it is. The irony came when it was the exact Price/ Benny package you are insisting is horrible, even though it’s been frequently discussed.

With Keuchel and Mazara acquired, the idea makes a lot less sense as we speak. Plus, one of the players I had going back to Boston was already traded for a different underperforming corner OFer.


9.) 24 Dec 2019 21:32:13
Well, you were trying to justify a silly trade that got 20+ downvotes the first time around you.

Since you've mentioned the surplus value "not robust" quote, go look up robust. You're acting like I'm saying it's a myth. I recognize that teams use labor economics to evaluate players and contracts. But I'm saying it's not this sure-fire system that every team follows with an agreed upon standard.

In any sense, there's a very real chance that Benintendi's "surplus value" to the Red Sox is far, far different than it is to the White Sox, for instance. That's not even a remotely controversial statement. So either you don't know what the word "robust" means, or you're just being an obnoxious blow-hard at this point.

"You weren’t the only one to disagree with this trade proposal". Well, if that isn't an understatement, I don't know what is. That post had over 20+ dislikes. I don't recall many posts getting that many, ever. So yeah, it's pretty evident that most people on this site disagreed with it. And just because a Fangraphs writers says, "sUrPlUs VaLuE sAyS sO" doesn't make it suddenly a good trade. There have been some monumentally wild takes even from Fangraphs' best writers. It doesn't make your point any more legitimate. That's called an "appeal to authority" argument and it doesn't work. Try again.

And finally, the point of you calling me out: you've done it now three times, at the very least. Three individual posts, not just "one sentence". Don't backtrack now and pretend like you're not that worked up over my existence on this site. You clearly think about me, otherwise you wouldn't keep posting about me.

I don't need to ask for attention. You offer quite a bit of it here. And it doesn't offend me, it actually creeps me out.


10.) 25 Dec 2019 01:10:22
Would love to know the other posts where i’ve directly called you out. No one is worked up over you. Please stop giving yourself so much credit. You have this odd superiority complex and get extremely uncomfortable when someone questions your thinking. It’s crazy.

Analyzing surplus value is about as sure of a system as you’ll find with MLB transactions. You’ve wisened up over the past couple of weeks because you initially called it a farce, so congratulations for that. Maybe you can admit you were wildly off there.

Robust is strong, healthy, vigorous or in other words, a perfect way to describe it’s role in everyday MLB transactions.

When various other reputable baseball writers have acknowledged this idea for Boston, it’s not a horrible idea as you’ve described it. It doesn’t mean my trade with the return to Boston would exactly work, or if Boston would ultimately go through with it, but it does at least validate the idea - precedent or not. If Bloom and his staff value Benintendi to the point that potentially losing Betts in order to keep him around it worth it, then maybe his time there will be short-lived.

Hopefully one day I can post a trade that the all mighty Statbook will approve of.


11.) 26 Dec 2019 13:48:16
My favorite was the one in which you thought I created a second account just to further disagree with you. You made an entire post accusing me of doing so, all because other people disagreed with you. But of course, I'M the one that can't handle being disagreed with. Need you be reminded that YOU literally posted an entire comment (this one) because people didn't agree with you and questioned your thinking. Go play with legos or something dude.

As far as the "robust" comment goes, it's not vigorous or strong at all. A. J. Preller has made trades and signings that go as far against the mold of "surplus value" and most executives that have been polled absolutely hate the moves and think they were bad. How is that evidence of a robust system? No two teams hold similar value, or even measure value the same. That's why I said, it's not as robust as you would like it to be.

Moral of the story: every indication (from a half dozen or so writers) has indicated that Bloom will not consider attaching top prospects or major leaguers to move David Price. We don't know how he values Benintendi. I'd imagine most of the "reputable baseball writers" who think they know are blowing smoke out of their you-know-where.

And NONE of this suggests that they either have to trade Benintendi or lose Mookie Betts. You're smart enough to not create such nonsensical false dichotomies. The Red Sox can do whatever they want. They have a filthy rich owner, and if they can't get rid of David Price or Nathan Eovaldi or J. D. Martinez without having to purge MORE depth, they'll just pay the luxury tax. Mookie Betts' future in Boston does not hinge on any of this. Good rule of thumb: if you have to use blatant logical fallacies to try and prove your point, you probably don't have a point.

And believe it not, I've agreed with you on several posts. You're just far too infatuated with me disagreeing with you and you seem to get off on it, so you probably don't notice. I can keep disagreeing with you if it makes you feel better. My guess is, it won't take much for myself, or others, to disagree with you, though.


12.) 26 Dec 2019 22:53:56
Okay, so this is ridiculous. All of it. So let me say this from a third-party:

One, both of you need to stop. Thestatbook is a jerk and while I typically agree, there are ways to say it. Chisox, if you don't want people to disagree with you, don't call people out in your posts. Your Price trade to the White Sox wasn't that great. And that's okay.

Two, Chisox, it's a little ironic that you suggest Thestabook can't handle disagreement. This post wouldn't exist if you could handle it. You can't. And you felt that you needed to call people out. It's kind of petty.

Three, Fangraphs is not the end-all, be-all. It has taken a big step back when guys like Dave Cameron, Eno Sarris, and several others left. Fangraphs can be wrong, and very often, they ARE wrong.

Four, surplus value IS a real thing. But some people use it like it's some sort of gospel truth. Just when we think we know how teams value players, they prove us wrong. The Padres continue to show that none of us know how teams value players. It changes all the time and for any circumstance. Chisox, it's pretty easy to see why people would think it's annoying that others would treat it like some kind of gospel truth: because it isn't. If you go to that site Baseball Trade Values, the values, which are supposedly "grounded in reality" have been way off all winter. Teams certainly use surplus value, but you have absolutely zero clue how, and you probably shouldn't act so arrogant about it.

Five (and last), just move on. Both of you. I can see from your profiles a myriad of silly, dumb arguments that went well longer than needed. You don't need to accuse people of making up new profiles, of saying "you know nothing" or get in this pseudo-peeing contest with each other. Just move on.


13.) 27 Dec 2019 13:44:24
Hahahaha, now I remember that post, Statbook. Funny thing about that profile was that one comment was the only activity on this site. It never posted or commented again. Fishy indeed, but glad to see you still are concerned about it. I was clearly trolling you. I'm sorry that I mentioned your name in this post. I didn't know you would take it like this. Names are mentioned in comments all the time. Relax.

Obviously no one likes the Hosmer signing in hindsight, but he’s literally a product of immense surplus value. They aren’t getting the big surplus value from him, but from all their studs they are paying league minimum so they can pay Hosmer closer to market value. But still, go look at Hosmer’s numbers in KC and remember that he was no slouch. They didn’t and probably couldn’t have forecasted his production since. I don’t know what else I can do for you, but you are still mightily struggling with this idea of how surplus value shapes transactions.

You say that polled executives hate Preller's moves after he went against surplus analysis (and has yet to win)? If he did do that, then I'm not surprised considering that's how the rest of them operate. So thanks for the additional evidence to my point.

You actually can’t make this up. In one paragraph, you talk about the indications of Bloom (which come via the insiders), then proceed to say they’re blowing smoke. So they either know what they’re talking about or not. Let’s try to at least stay consistent here. What was that about a logical fallacy? Good grief.

If Boston’s current payroll situation wasn’t an issue to extending Betts, then he would have already been locked up by now. They have to make changes - that's why Bloom was brought in. If they were just going to pay into the luxury tax unphased, then Dombrowski would still be employed. He was really good at that.

Players are valued like any other asset for any other company, like any other traded security. If you are so inclined, The Extra 2% by Jonah Keri has a great bit on how this works. Tampa Bay effectively took wall street's valuation strategies and brought them to MLB.

We've talked about how the budget constraint is the most significant to teams, some a lot more than others. How to put the best possible team on the field for the lowest possible price is how teams (and all firms) operate. In not saying they all have identical models to achieve this, but by all means, they try to get the players that give them the most production at a given price over what the market dictates that player is worth at that production level. By you guys saying that surplus value analysis is not "gospel truth", you are disagreeing with this.


14.) 27 Dec 2019 15:18:37
"You actually can’t make this up. In one paragraph, you talk about the indications of Bloom (which come via the insiders), then proceed to say they’re blowing smoke. So they either know what they’re talking about or not. "

Well, when you can't read or comprehend, I can see how you'd come to this. Use your context clues and try again. Or has your 6th grade remedial English class not covered those yet?

I never said that the folks quoting front office people are blowing smoke. I'm saying that those who insist on Andrew Benintendi's surplus value (or David Price's for that matter) are. That's different. One is a direct quote that comes from reputable journalism, the other is pure conjecture and bored writers finding topics to earn their paycheck. I would hope you can see the difference.


15.) 27 Dec 2019 15:39:06
And no, surplus value is not "gospel truth" you know why? BECAUSE NOT EVERY TEAM MEASURES VALUE THE EXACT SAME WAY. If I value a car at $10,000, and you think it's $1,000, the "value" is not gospel truth. It's entirely subjective. This isn't a difficult concept, nor is that statement remotely controversial. The White Sox value talent differently than the Rays, who value it differently than the Dodgers.

You keep coming back to that statement, and I don't think you understand what it means (par for the course for you), but no one is denying that labor economics is a thing. Literally no one has done that here. What I'm saying is that the actual "values" are merely perceived, and not grounded in reality, unless of course, you work for a major league team, which were that the case, you wouldn't be here.

I just don't find the "Player A is equal to Player B because surplus value" argument all that great. I think it's a pretty lazy approach to understanding actual player value, and a lazy approach to coming up with trades. Talent and value isn't linear. Yes, teams want to field the best team as economically as possible. And yes, they quantify it with a numeric value. But you and I don't know these and won't know these. Thus, the surplus value argument, as it comes from you or Fangraphs writers is really lazy and to assume it's gospel truth is bad. You don't even know if what you're saying is the truth.

We've seen the "sUrPlUs vAlUe" guys come in here and try to use it to justify outlandishly terrible trades. My favorite was the Rays fan who said that Brent Honeywell and Daniel Robertson had more surplus value than Kris Bryant, two years ago, and thus, the Cubs would be stupid to not take that trade.

It's not too much different than you saying Price and Benintendi for packing peanuts is a good trade trade. You're not actually engaging in a labor economics argument, nor a baseball argument. You're just trying to take a ubiquitous principle and demand we must apply it to your trade, because somehow, the numbers you've assumed match up. This is subjective, and you're trying to move the goalposts by saying, "well, every team engages in labor economics, thus my surplus value argument is correct. "


16.) 27 Dec 2019 15:47:33
And finally, "If Boston’s current payroll situation wasn’t an issue to extending Betts, then he would have already been locked up by now. They have to make changes - that's why Bloom was brought in. If they were just going to pay into the luxury tax unphased, then Dombrowski would still be employed. He was really good at that. "

This is so misinformed, I don't know where to begin. Betts has reportedly turned at least one extension offer (8/ $200M) and likely others. Perhaps Mookie Betts wants to explore free agency, rather than be limited to negotiating with one team? It's worked out quite well for many guys over the years.

Also, of course they WANT to get under the luxury tax. That's why they brought in Bloom. But they aren't just going to purge all of their depth for the sake of getting under the luxury tax. They'll obviously try and shed some bad contracts and hope some team will just take it on. THAT was my point, and it seems, based on the comments of Bloom, that he's not willing to sacrifice depth or being in contention just to get under the luxury tax.

This isn't even conjecture. It's based on comments that have been corroborated by several journalists across several platforms. He's not adding in Benintendi on a Price trade just to get rid of David Price, unless of course the return (in terms of players acquired, not a goal achieved) he gets warrants such a trade.

I don't know if you like to twist and manipulate comments to make them more difficult just to try and throw confusion into the mix, or if you generally don't understand what people are saying. But these conversations won't go anywhere if you're doing either of those. So I suggest you either learn to read or learn to make good-faith arguments. This is a bad look for you.


17.) 27 Dec 2019 16:10:34
I read that Jonah Keri book, Chi Sox. It's a great book. It's even better when you read it without a predisposition of thinking it proves what you're saying, but that's neither here nor there.

The point I think many here are making, or least I'm making, is that you can't just assume that every team thinks the same way, acts the same way, and has the same valuations. Obviously teams are trying to get production at cost efficiency. That's every business since the beginning of time (Also notice: baseball teams are owned by mostly successful businessmen, and many GMs have economics and math backgrounds) .

Yes, every team uses surplus value to an extent. Every business does as well. Pizza Hut works hard to shave one cent off the cost of their pizza boxes, because they can make more money by doing so. Everyone wants greater returns on their investments. None of that is false.

What's "false" is someone thinking that the numbers they came up with represent reality. You don't know what reality is here. You're making it up. Craig Edwards is making it up. You might have a fairly general sense of what those numbers are, but we simply don't know.

The Baseball Trade Value site valued Luis Urias at 66M. Fangraphs and other places valued him around the same. His return netted the Padres -45+ million (that's negative 45), based on the values everyone else had. So is Preller an idiot or does he value players differently? If this is gospel truth, you have to say he's wrong, in which the Padres owner should fire him for losing 45M in value in one trade.

The truth is, Preller is justifying this trade to his superiors because he has numbers that he and his team have developed regarding Grisham and Davies. Meanwhile, David Stearns is probably celebrating, because he's looking at Urias and Lauer's numbers that he and his team have developed.

If this was gospel truth, we wouldn't have bad trades. We wouldn't have winners and losers of trades. And baseball would be incredibly boring. And if "How to put the best possible team on the field for the lowest possible price is how teams (and all firms) operate", you wouldn't have teams like the Giants trading Bryan Reynolds for Andrew McCutchen, or trading for a 32 year old Evan Longoria. Teams operate in a multitude of ways. They think differently. When Bobby Evans was with the Giants, their mindset was to sell tickets, and so they made some stupid trades that got big name players in the ballpark, but did nothing for the future. Some teams leverage future talent for current production, other teams like the Dodgers refuse to trade their best prospects.

This isn't gospel truth, at all. It never was. It's incredibly arrogant for anyone to think so. But you don't really seem willing to entertain anyone else's ideas, and that's why you posted this to begin with. I'm now seeing that the problem isn't Thestatbook (although he's still a jerk), it's actually you, Chi Sox. You can't get over how smart you think you sound, and it's quite obnoxious.


18.) 27 Dec 2019 20:22:51
Wow, a lot to address here. I appreciate your guy's persistence.

I think there's a lot of confusion about the points we are trying to make.

1. Statbook, you quoted Bloom as saying that he wouldn’t attach prospects to attach Bloom, not Benintendi - a plyer now entering his arb years. Whether they would or wouldn’t (or even should or shouldn’t) has come from the different writers. You can decide who’s reputable and who’s not, but I’m saying that regardless, we are basing our perception on what Chaim Bloom is willing to do on their word. Sometimes they have good insight on the topic, and yes, sometimes they are stirring something up just to be able to write an article. My initial post was to express the fact that someone else, from usually one of the more reputable sites (I mean we aren’t talking ESPN or Bleacher Report here), essentially shared an idea of mine that you said was horrible to even fathom. I would say that’s extreme. Trading a league average hitter from Boston’s lineup is not “purging all of their depth. ” C’mon now.

2. Here’s my whole point on surplus value. Teams try to create a window of sustainable contention by building a core of prospects that will all graduate to the big leagues around the same time. When this happens and those players begin to produce well above their pre-arb and even arb salaries, they get a bunch of surplus from these players. Once this core is realized, it give the clubs the ability to spend on the premium talent that the free agent market has to offer. The problem is that this talent has to be purchased at market value, which is expensive. Clubs can’t build a successful roster without this surplus value because they just can’t afford it.

A great example of this is the LA Angels. They might have the best player in the history of the game, another top-5 player in baseball, and one of the greatest players of the 2000s decade, and they may not come close to a playoff berth. The dominant model, as the last couple of WS winners have showed us, is to develop your core and then supplement it with free agents, not vice versa. What ever you want to call it - the dominant model, gospel truth, whatever. It’s the reality of the sport. Accumulation of surplus value is what front offices attempt to do with every transaction. The big moves with less surplus value are made possible by the other rostered players who DO have a lot of surplus value. Again, this is with every team's personalized model applied.

Statbook, your car example - You value the car at $10,000 while I only value it at $1,000 because either a. ) your budget constraint is a lot less significant than mine so your can afford to pay more to ensure your acquisition, or b. ) your current necessity for the car is much more than mine. Option (a) is why the A’s lost Jason Giambi to the Yankees in 2002, and option (b) is why we see Houston take on Grienke and why the Cubs traded Gleyber Torres for a half season of Chapman. A lock down closer is much more valuable to a team on the brink of a title than on a middling, .500 team. No, our values are not equal, but the idea of surplus value still holds. In either option, whatever your individual valuation model is, it has told you that out-bidding me by $9,000 is a worth-while investment because you are still getting surplus from it. You can justify that you are better off now than you were prior to purchasing the car.

I’ve said numerous times that teams don’t have the same surplus values for the same players. This is why the surplus value calculators don’t work for that TB/ Cubs trade proposal, statbook. They assume that everyone has the same valuation (notice I’m not saying the same surplus valuation) of every player therefore all one has to do is match up the numbers. I’m not advocating for that in the slightest.

thedudeabides, the Giants tried to patch together another title with a core that they thought could still produce. They hoped Longoria and Cutch would be similar to the kind of players they were in TB and Pittsburgh, but it largely wasn’t the case. Selling tickets is undoubtedly part of team's processes, which leads me to my previous point that actually marginal revenue product (MRP) is a much more encompassing way to calculate surplus value. While a player’s WAR (as the proxy for on-field production) goes a long way in determining their MRP, it shouldn’t be the only thing that goes into surplus value, which I’m assuming is the case for these calculators. Generating ticket revenue, marketing ability, etc. all go into a good surplus value calculation - again, given what a team could pay for on the open market for similar MRP. thedudeabides, I hope this shows you that i’m not advocating for the surplus value calculators, so I really don’t care what the Baseball Trade Value site said or didn’t say. I’ve already been down this road of explanation with statbook. For his sake, I’m not sure if it was retained or not.

3. Statbook, you know that extension offer to Betts is BS and down right embarrassing. They knew he would instantly turn it down. To this point, it appears that the offer was the type of “well, we tried” offer, like what the Nats offered Harper. If he turned down the 10/ $300-350 offer that he deserves playing in a huge market, then it’s a different story, but there has been no indication of that. My point is that Boston needs to put themselves in the position financially to offer Betts the extension that he can’t refuse. At a certain point, there’s a risk aversion factor for Betts that he’ll give into, no matter how much he thinks he wants to test free agency. Even though we can see Betts produce 6-WAR in his sleep, why take the gamble for an extra 5-10% or with the uncertainties that can happen over a full season if this offer is on the table from Boston? People have different preferences, but this seems like a dumb gamble. Also, If the extension is offered and signed before shedding payroll, then it takes away any leverage that Boston would have because others know there’s only so much money that they are willing to flush down the drain in luxury taxes.


19.) 28 Dec 2019 02:48:17
Regarding surplus valuation, this is the point I'm making, and I think a lot of people make. It's just exceedingly lazy. And it's largely a farce.

Obviously, labor economics is a thing. Again, no one here has argued against it. But the fact that almost zero teams value players, contracts, or trades the same shows why it isn't this "gospel truth" or all that robust. It's extremely fluid and entirely subjective.

So arguing "value" is only effective if you know how teams actually value a player. You don't, so I think it's a pretty silly argument to assert that because you think his value is x, then the team must, and thus, the trade is fair. My car example was clearly overthought by you. I was simply saying that I can put whatever value I wish and that's the "value". So if I think Andrew Benintendi is worth Gleyber Torres, but you think he's not, that's fine, but don't get worked up when people don't agree with the value.

Chaim Bloom clearly values the very minimal depth they have. And yes, "Trading a league average hitter from Boston’s lineup is “purging all of their depth"' The Red Sox have no other viable options. Their only other OF option is Marcus Wilson, a recent addition to the 40-man roster. So it's either trade from the putrid farm system they have, or spend more than 5M on a league-average hitter (who probably has a far worse ceiling than Benintendi) . Neither of those are ideal.

And again, the point with Mookie Betts is that he's been pretty set on FA. Multiple comments he has made have referenced his looking forward to FA. He doesn't seem like a guy wanting to limit himself to negotiating with one team. I'd imagine the Red Sox know this as well (as do teams thinking about trading for him) .

Nobody envies Boston's position, obviously. But I simply think that the addition of Benintendi is more of a thought exercise than it is something grounded in reality. It makes literally zero sense to add Benintendi to get rid of Price's contract, regardless of how you feel about him. I still think the Red Sox can get rid of Price if they take on 30-45M of his salary. Or, again, they'll just pay the luxury tax and deal with it in another 12 months. They are not required to just give away players and ruin their ever-shrinking window of contention just to get rid of Price or Eovaldi.

Also, relevant to this conversation: the current Collective Bargaining Agreement ends in 2021. There's a lot of discussion surrounding the luxury tax's addition in the new CBA, so it very well could go away. Could Boston take the gamble that they won't have to worry about it after 2021 and just compete? There seems to be some validity that they would take that chance.


 

 

17 May 2018 23:47:42
With the Machado to Cubs talks being brought up, does Happ, Russell and Montgomery really get it done?

A SS, albeit still young, who has never hit .250, highest wOBA is .316 and has never been at least average in terms of wRC+. Plus a guy in Happ who doesn't really have a position (he can "adequately" play the corners, decent in CF) who is hitting .233 (.396 BABIP) with a 44.2%(!!!) K-Rate. Sure these guys project as much better, but these are the cornerstones in return for your franchise player?

If I'm Baltimore, I'm pushing for Almora Jr. instead of Happ and I want Adbert Alzolay instead of Montgomery. Plus I think the versatility of Montgomery is more valuable to a playoff team like the Cubs.

Chi Sox

1.) 18 May 2018 23:05:52
I can't see the Cubs giving up that much controllable MLB-ready talent for less than a full year of Machado.

I'm definitely not high on Happ or Russell, but the Cubs seem to be. I don't see it.


 

 

24 Oct 2017 11:14:23
Question of the Day:
Did @thestatbook pull a Skip Bayless and create a new account so someone would voice their agreement with him in our debates? Hmmm, "ilikebaseball", no posts, no comments prior. Very suspect, "dawg." That would actually be hilarious.

Chi Sox

1.) 25 Oct 2017 02:43:09
It isn’t me. But I know who they are. I told a friend about our debates and he joined this to troll.

Just ignore him, or don’t. It’s your choice.


2.) 25 Oct 2017 03:09:03
haha u just mad no one agrees with u.


3.) 25 Oct 2017 04:29:36
Hahaha right!


4.) 25 Oct 2017 14:45:51
Well this is interesting. Your just mad because thestatbook obliterated you in the that post. He is usually right about these things. If I hadn't been so busy the last few weeks, I would have agreed with him on this. So let's first talk about the prospects, they are not guaranteed to pan out. I can name a handful of guys who were top prospects and didn't pan out. I find it hilarious you think no team can top any offer the White Sox could make. I agree with thestatebook about the Cubs and Nationals systems. Just because they don't have that many or no top 100 prospects, doesn't mean they can't make a big trade. They have depth that could help them out with that problem. Guess what, after the top 100 prospects that the White Sox have, their depth is lacking. You said they have one of the best systems we have ever seen, clearly a homer. The Yankees still have a better system, because of depth. Your even more delusional for thinking the White Sox could EVER afford Manny Machado. You said the Yankees would never trade Torres, especially with Florial and Adams. Teams say they won't trade prospects all the time, then they trade them. Half of that argument was you being petty, You come off as someone who has to be right all the time.


5.) 25 Oct 2017 14:59:02
BATMAN! Must be a fake account I created too.


6.) 25 Oct 2017 19:37:48
Batman, we have an 82 year old owner worth 1.5 Billion that is going to spend whatever it takes, he's already said that. He has been conservative in the past, but all indications are that it's going to change in 2019. The Bulls aren't going anywhere anytime soon, so he's going to put his money into the Sox in the near future. They aren't going to have a $250 payroll, but they have virtually no money on the books for 2019 and beyond, so I think they'll at least dish out 1 huge contract.

They have, by far the best farm system in baseball currently. The best I have ever seen, maybe you could point to a better one if the history of baseball. No depth outside of the top 100? Wow. Burger, Collins, Fulmer, Dunning, Adams, Adolfo Sheets, Gillaspie, etc. That's better than like half of teams BEST prospects.

Who are the Cubs going to center a trade around to get a blockbuster done? Schwarber? Baez? Yeah right.

I don't have to be right all the time. On multiple occasions, I pointed statbook out for having really good points, bringing up things I didn't think about.


7.) 25 Oct 2017 20:58:25
Spend to do whatever it takes? Since when has he done that? Never, almost everyone they have signed in recent history has been flop. You see Reinsdorf spending $45 million on just one player? I don't, that would be at least half the White Sox payroll for YEARS to come. BTW your owner is a clueless old man. Again with your farm system assertion, after all the top 100 prospects they have, they severely lack depth. That is another factor what makes a farm system great. Carson Fulmer is garbage, Zac Collins didn't hit anything all year, and went down in rankings, not even a top 100 anymore. Adams had 4.45 ERA this past season, his ERA climbs up each level he goes up. Gillaspie hit 223 between the Rays and White Sox Organizations. Sheets is largerly unproven and needs more time before you have a valid argument for him. Do you know why the Astros always have a good farm system, even after trades and promotions? Because they probably have the best in all of baseball, as do the Yankees, Brewers, Braves, and Cubs. You are saying you don't have to be right all the time, but here you are trying to be right.


8.) 25 Oct 2017 21:11:43
But the Giants ownership, led by Charles Johnson (net worth ~4.6B, along with other filthy rich guys, can't afford to have Pence and Stanton on the same team?

These wild takes, man. You really are something else.


9.) 26 Oct 2017 10:52:23
Statbook, The giants COULD keep both Stanton and Pence, but all I was saying is that they probably don't want to pay him $18 to sit the bench and pinch hit. They could use that $18 to bolster the bullpen, add a starter, or even add 2 bench guys who may even be better than Pence in that role. They had like a $175 MM payroll to essentially be the worst team in baseball. They aren't exactly thriving. I know they will spend to win, but spending stupid money doesn't sound right.

Batman, The man with 7 Championship rings is a clueless old man. I don't think so. Like I said if you read my post, he has been historically conservative with his money. With that being said, he has said his #1 goal is to bring another championship to Chicago. Up until this year, the Bulls had been pretty good. Now both of his teams are in a rebuild, but the White Sox are much further along. The man is 82, who knows how much time he has left. He knows he needs to make the most of this opportunity.

The largest contract in White Sox history is Jose Abreu, I would say that worked out pretty well. Don't act like he has never spent before. From 2006-2008, they had a top 5 payroll. If they can show this year that the young guys have serious potential, he's going to go for it because the team will probably never be in a better situation to spend big $$ and win it all when he owns the team, or when he's even alive.

If the Sox severely lack depth, then virtually every system does. Is there any prospect site that doesn't have the White Sox as the #1 farm system right now? Let me know. It's also easy to say "after their top 100 prospects", but before Moncada, Giolito and Lopez graduated, they had 9 or 10 top 100s (depending on what site you want to source) . 10 guys in the top 100? That's a good start to having good depth. Depth isn't just how many guys that are considered good but not great (right outside the top 100). Having depth can also be you have a lot of really good prospects too. The only system that even comes close to the Sox right now is Atlanta. If all those non-top 100 guys for the Sox are awful, show me a better system with better non-top 100 prospects.


10.) 26 Oct 2017 14:18:52
6 of the championship rings are with the BULLS, one 12 years ago with the White Sox. The White Sox have done nothing since, maybe been to the playoffs once since 2005. He is clueless in the baseball department, we are NOT talking about Basketball. And if you read what I said more clearly I said ALMOST ALL everyone they have signed as been a bust, never said everyone. Secondly I don't see them signing Manny Machado to a 10-12 year 400-450 million deal, and also signing Adam Jones too. Secondly let's talk about how he even more clueless, Kenny Williams who was the GM for a while and responsible for all the terrible contracts, terrible trades, awful farm system and terrible drafting, should have been fired years ago. But he got promoted, HOW? He was terrible, its called false loyalty. Next let's look at your pitching coach Don Cooper, supposedly one of the best pitching coaches in the game. Yet that staff regularly has an ERA in 4s. He should have been fired years ago, he should not have survived all the managerial changes over the years. Next let's look at the recent hiring of the latest manager, Rick Renteria, he was terrible with the Cubs and fired after one season. He is not a good manager, a rather dumb decision if you ask me. You're saying just because they at one point this year had 10 top 100 prospects that means they have good depth, no it doesn't. you have to look in the ENTIRE organization. They have to a plethora of everything that scouts will rave about. For instance I'll use the Yankees as an example they have a ton of pitchers, middle infielders, outfielders, some catchers, and some first baseman that people rave about. I never hear the White Sox get those raves after a few select players. The Astros, Dodgers, Cubs, Braves, Brewers, Cardinals, and a few other teams do to.


11.) 26 Oct 2017 15:34:00
In fairness to Renteria, it's unfair to cite his firing. That team was putrid, and rebuilding teams often just hire any warm body they can (see: Ron Gardenhire) . Very likely, the White Sox will can Renteria when they actually want to become serious about being a good baseball team.


12.) 26 Oct 2017 18:30:20
First of all, If you don't hear about the Sox system getting raves, what rock are you living under? Literally Baseball America, MLB Pipeline, everyone constantly RAVES over their entire system. They also have a pretty good spread of different positions, although I'd like to see a good LHP in there. They also have a #4 pick next June. If you don't believe that they have the best system in the league, you are an absolute fool. Let's make that clear.

Secondly, They have around $6 Million committed for 2019. This is pre-arb, so let's be generous and say they have $40MM in players before free agency. If they are trying to contend it 2019, they could easily have a $120-130MM payroll. So that leaves what, $90MM to spend? Plus all the guys that will still be on rookie/ arb contracts. I count 8 guys JUST from my proposed starting rotation and lineup that will be making minimal $$. It's probably more like 12 or 13 guys with a bullpen and bench. Adam Jones was a possibility for me, but after going over his CF metrics for 2017, I probably won't push that much for them to sign him.

They easily could give Machado $30-$35MM per year and then build the rest of the team (maybe 5-6 guys) with $40-50 Million. That's not hard to do. I'm not saying they'll have a $200MM payroll. Also if Machado puts up a 2.9 WAR in back to back years and hits .260 again, maybe we need to pump the brakes on $450 million.

For Kenny Williams, I mostly agree with you. He made some bad deals as the GM, but he's out of that role now. But when you break an 88-year drought, you're going to get some leeway. Just like Cubs fans are going to give Joe Maddon leeway for the duration of his time as manager, even though he did a terrible job managing games in the playoffs this year and was even questionable last year.

Rick Renteria did an unbelievable job this year. And he was fired because the Cubs had the opportunity to get Maddon, obviously. He got a team that was designed to lose games to play their butts off every game, and we saw some really good things out of young players, not all, but most signs were encouraging. Being bi-lingual on a team and with a farm system that is filled with a ton of Latin American players is also severely underrated. Is he the ultimate answer? Only time will tell and 2018 will be big for him. Also, the Cubs fired him because they had the opportunity to get Maddon, obviously.

But probably the most idiotic thing I've ever read on this site, which says a lot, is that Don Cooper is a bad pitching coach. Survived all the managerial changes? He's pretty much been under 3 managers in 15 years. Look at the guys he's developed over the years. Sale, Quintana, Kanhle, Thornton, Buerhle, Garland, Bobby Jenks, Addison Reed, John Danks, Gavin Floyd to name a few. Maybe aside from Sale, who everyone said would never be able to be a consistent starter, none of those guys were really highly touted. From 2003-2012, White Sox pitchers were never worse than 5th in WAR and in that same span, their starters were never worse than 3rd in IP. Guys trying to rebound their careers constantly sign with the White Sox to work with Coop. He's an absolute master at his craft and still one of the best in the league.


13.) 26 Oct 2017 19:03:31
White Sox Team ERA: under Cooper
2017: 4.78
2016: 4.10
2015: 3.98
2014: 4.29
2013: 3.98
2012: 4.02
2011: 4.10
2010: 4.09
2009: 4.14
2008: 4.06-the last year they made the playoffs
2007: 4.77
2006: 4.61
2005: 3.61- won the world series
2004: 4.91
2003: 4.17
2002: 4.53- Cooper's first season as pitching coach.
Explain to me again how a team that regular finishes with 4-5 runs given up a game in a season has not changed pitching coaches.
I will give you some slack for mentioning Sale and Qunintana, both are good pitchers. Same with Kahnle. John Danks career with the White Sox 79-104, ERA 4.38. 3 totals season with a winning record in 10 seasons. Bobby Jenks fell apart and hasn't pitched since 2011. He can't fix James Shields, couldn't fix Clippard in the short time he was there. Gavin Floyd in 7 seasons with them 63-65, 4.22 ERA. I am not disagreeing with you on them having a good system, they do, the best, i don't think so. It was baron before those trades, and after all they acquired it still isn't that plentiful. I could be wrong, but you need to stop acting like that everyone will pan out.


14.) 26 Oct 2017 19:51:19
Pitching staffs are 3rd in overall WAR with Cooper as the pitching coach, so he's actually been pretty good.

But, when you dig into the numbers:

2017 was really bad, and it showed how much Sale and Quintana carried that pitching staff. They were 2nd to last in pitching WAR this year. Sans Sale and Quintana (amongst others) they were only slightly better in 2016 (5.6 WAR for all non-Sale/ Q guys) .

Much of Cooper's success has come from 3-4 pitchers (Sale, Quintana, Buehrle, Vazquez) . Beyond those guys, it's been relatively thin.

And I'm not sure it's a development issue, either. As Sale, Q, and Buehrle were all elite pitchers, you'd have many organizations that could have developed them into superstars.

So I'm torn on Cooper's success. On one hand, he's had very good pitchers. On the other, that success is tied into about 4-6 pitchers and it bottomed out very quick.


15.) 26 Oct 2017 21:10:25
And that is the real point i've been trying to make. The WAR for the pitching isn't that bad, but he's only been able to hone in on a few pitchers. Pelfrey, Holland, Edwin Jackson, James Shields, Matt Latos, Samardizja, and Liriano are all examples of guys who signed or were traded there and did not rebound there career their. Liriano was able to rebound in Pittsburgh were pitchers actually rebound their careers.


16.) 26 Oct 2017 23:59:24
Yeah, the whole "rebound their career" statement was silly.

I guess the question is who. Maybe Miguel Gonzalez? But yeah, recent "rebound projects" have bee really, really bad in Chicago.

Chi Sox is the king of awful takes. They get funnier and bolder by the day.


17.) 27 Oct 2017 00:45:40
Ray Searage is another one of the best in the league.


18.) 27 Oct 2017 07:00:39
For those ERAs, he wasn't always given the best guys to work with. Now, I'm not saying that every team has been a success or even every player he's worked with. 2015 being a good example of failure. In 2017, yeah the ERA was 4.78, but look at our rotation for most of the season. Mike Pelfrey made 21 STARTS! You had guys like guys like Chris Volstad and David Holmberg starting games. The Chris Becks and Dylan Coveys of the world in the bullpen. For the most part, the front office was trying to lose games.

When you look at the Career #s of Danks and Floyd, they aren't that impressive. But you have to know the context. Danks was acquired from Texas and gave the Sox 4 really good years 2008-2011. He's a big reason why we even made the playoffs in 2008 because he shut down the Twins in the blackout tie-breaker game in '08. Then injuries derailed his career. He lost his fastball and could never find a good way to pitch without it. Floyd was a top prospect of the Phillies that came up and sucked so they gave up on him. He comes to Chicago and wins 17 games in 08 and then he was at least a solid starting pitcher for 5 seasons. He had a 4.0 WAR in 2009 and 2010.

He hasn't been able to fix Shields, but my God, could anyone fix all of that? The guys is just awful now. And he absolutely fixed Clippard. He had a 1.80 ERA and 10.8 Ks/ 9 with the White Sox. That's like vintage Clippard. His stay was short, but that was the goal all along. They got a team (Houston) to pay the rest of his $ while getting more $$ in return.

Buehrle was a 38th round pick from Jefferson College (!?!? ) and the Yankees just released Quintana after he was originally signed for like 50K out of Columbia. Sale, yes probably would have been fantastic with other clubs, But I think Cooper deserves a ton of credit for Quintana and especially Buehrle. He's had SOME good pitchers, but doesn't he get some credit as to how they became good MLB pitchers? Most of them didn't come in as top prospects (like they are now) . Heck, I remember everyone freaking out because guys like Keith Law and Callis were saying Sale would wind up as a lefty specialist out of the bullpen because there was no way anyone could keep him healthy with his mechanics.

As for the prospects. I mean come on. The Sox don't have a plentiful system? I really never said they would all pan out, they all obviously won't. I'm talking about the grades that all these prospect ranking sites give their prospects. Who can you legitimately say has a better system than them currently? I really don't care if the Yankees or Braves have better "25-30 ranked" prospects than the Sox because very rarely do those guys come up or more importantly, come up and make an impact. They at one point this season had 3 top 10 prospects. TOP 10! And as statbook knows all too well, I think Luis Robert has a good chance to be top 10 by the end of 2018. They still have 6 top 100s with 3 graduating in 2017 and 4 guys who I could easily see breaking into the top 100 by seasons end (Collins, Fulmer, Dunning, Burger) .


19.) 27 Oct 2017 07:59:20
We could give you answers, but unless the answer is “the White Sox”, you won’t even accept it.

So why waste our time?


20.) 27 Oct 2017 16:07:03
If you can give me answers with solid evidence, I'll gladly accept it. The key part is having good evidence or justification for dissenting opinions.


21.) 27 Oct 2017 17:20:15
Ok here you are trying to justify why they had a bad ERA this past season. You are saying because of the pitchers they were given they did horrible, ok isn't that also the fault of the pitching coach too? by your logic he should have been able to fix Pelfrey to be the pitcher he was early on with them Mets or at least a fraction of it. Danks may have had injury problems, but he could have rebounded. And you have contradicted yourself when you said he couldn't rebound and regain his fastball. Cooper could/ should have been able to help him. Floyd you said was a top prospect in the Phillies system. This true, but this also proves my point about not all prospects panning out. Cooper has had some success with pitchers, but those are few and far between. They are outnumbered by alot. For Shields I could think that his Rays pitching Coach, Jim Hickey could fix him, Ray Searage, Juan Nieves, if Dave Duncan was still coaching he could probably do so.


22.) 27 Oct 2017 18:34:51
Statbook, so with Kahnle, Floyd, Danks, Matt Albers, Junior Guerra, Jesse Crain, Quintana, Miguel Gonzalez, Phil Humber, Matt Thornton, Edwin Jackson, J. J. Putz, Greg Infante, Dustin Hermanson, Cliff Polite, Damaso Marte, etc., none of those guys rebounded their careers with Cooper? Call my takes "bad", but you're just flat out wrong here. I've never seen more irony than with you saying I'M the king of bad takes! hahaha

I'm not saying he has a 100% success rate, that's unreasonable. If a pitching coach can have roughly a 50% success rate, that's pretty good.


"You are saying because of the pitchers they were given they did horrible, ok isn't that also the fault of the pitching coach too? "

No, last time I checked, the pitching coach doesn't form the rosters. No one was trying to fix Pelfrey, he was merely brought in after spring training to be an innings eater on a bad team. With injuries and natural aging, some pitchers simply become not talented enough to be major league pitchers. Or some are never talented enough to even be there in the first place. Wonder why Danks is out of the league now and not working with one of those other pitching coaches you pointed out? Because he realized he was done. Again, if you think Coop hasn't had success in rebounding guys, show me other pitching coaches and give me names of guys that they've helped turn their careers around. Sometimes too, it's not always about if they actually found success after coming to the White Sox, it's guys like Holland that came, turning down more money, to come work with Cooper based on his exceptional reputation around the league.

I also never said all the Sox prospects would turn out good anyway. Is it reasonable to say that 5 or 6 of players out of 13 that were recently top 100 will pan out? I'd also say that's a safe bet.

Finally, if Shields wasn't on a team trying to lose games and wasn't owed $10MM next year, he would have been cut months ago. No one can fix that. Trust me, I've watched way too many of his starts recently. He is just not a good pitcher.


23.) 27 Oct 2017 19:45:14
-Phil Humber had a 5.34 ERA with Chicago.
-Albers had a 6.41 ERA in his second year (where a career "rebound" would be more obvious. ) That was good for a -2.0 WAR. He was a serviceable reliever until he went to Chicago.
-Junior Guerra pitched four innings for the White Sox, FOUR. His "rebound" was with Milwaukee, and even that didn't last.
-J. J. Putz had a 3.07 career ERA before his season in Chicago, and posted only a slightly better one there.
-John Danks got progressively worse every year at Chicago.
-Edwin Jackson was a year removed for a 4-Win season when he went to Chicago and it took him two seasons there to match his one from Detroit.

Did you even look at the numbers, or just list a bunch of pitchers Don Cooper coached over the years? Phil Humber was objectively horrible for 2 straight years, one of them being as a White Sox. His career was every but "rebounded" during his time there. He had 1 good year there. We don't qualify that as a "rebound".

About 2 or 3 on that whole list actually had "rebounded" their careers under Cooper (and one of them I already mentioned) .

I actually thought you wouldn't be ridiculous enough to cite Phil Humber as having his career "rebounded", and you went there.

Absolutely hilarious.


24.) 27 Oct 2017 20:13:30
Also, that whole thing of Derek Holland turning down more money to work with Cooper, how'd that work out for him?

Highest ERA of his career, highest walk rate, highest FIP, doubled his HRs given up from the year prior, lowest WAR total, almost 2 full ticks off his velocity, and his FB rating went from -0.8 to -24.0 IN ONE YEAR! Every one of his pitches got worse.

I don't know what kind of offers Derek Holland had on the table when he signed last December. But if he actually turned down money to go to Chicago and be an innings eater, he's a moron. He'll be getting a minor-league deal this winter, thanks to Cooper. (But let me guess, it's totally not Cooper's fault. He only takes credit when it works out well for him? )

It's a miracle what he did: he took a mediocre starting pitcher and turned him into a terrible starting pitcher. What a coach.

Look, I know there will be cases where a guy will fail. And I don't fault Cooper for all of those. But the point is: if you want to credit him with every guy who got remotely better because he was in White Sox jersey (often for things Cooper had almost no role in), then we have to equally discredit him for every guy who got significantly worse in White Sox jersey.

This doesn't make him a terrible coach, it makes him human. But propping him up as this guy who saves everyone's career (and then giving me borderline-wrong, or in some cases, completely wrong examples) is a pretty ridiculous take. He's helped a few pitchers over the years get better. That applies to literally every pitching coach in baseball. Congrats, you have a professional pitching coach.


25.) 27 Oct 2017 20:39:50
Cliff Politte, another "rebounded" player was let go mid-season in 2006 and pitched a total of 17 IP in the minors before giving up baseball.

Citing him a "rebound project" is comical. He didn't rebound his career in Chicago. He never played again after being beyond terrible in 2006.

He was 1.9 WAR guy coming into Chicago, he left Chicago accumulating 0.8 WAR. He was twice as good elsewhere than he was in Chicago.

How'd I know you were going to give us a bunch of garbage players and try to pass them off? A simple look at their career numbers suggests guys like Humber and Politte were not good. Yet you cited them as "rebounding their careers" under Cooper. No, they had a good season.


26.) 28 Oct 2017 03:05:07
This started from the claim from Batman that Don Cooper was a terrible pitching coach. Do you think he's awful and he should definatly be fired? If not, you should remember who you are disagreeing with. Until you guys can show me a pitching coach that has a better reputation for getting good innings out of guys after they struggled, I will stand by my notion that Don Cooper is one of the best in the league. Those WAR and IP stats posted earlier don't lie either. You say he had just a few good pitchers that carried him, but when you develop really good pitchers, yes they will pitcher a lot and attribute to wins, obviously.

I didn't have to look at the numbers for those other pitchers. I know/ remember when they brought in pitchers that had really good stetches like Polite and Hermanson being pivitol in 2005 and Humber having a great run of a couple months that included a perfect game. The only context you have is looking at their final numbers season by season on Fangraphs. I was never saying he "saved" all of them and then they all became all-stars. I know they got good innings out of all those guys because I watched them do it, just like you watched Bochy put fast guys at the top of the order while he didn't care about OBP.

"But the point is: if you want to credit him with every guy who got remotely better because he was in White Sox jersey (often for things Cooper had almost no role in) "

Right, you know exactly what role Don Cooper had in the development of all of his pitchers. You're hilarious. This is where you clearly show you know slim to none about the actual game of baseball outside of numbers you find on fangraphs. It's not always seeing the numbers while in a Sox uniform either or numbers at all. Guys have literally talked about how Coop did wonders for them. When Guerra was in Milwaukee and people asked him about his breakout year, they showed his interview on a White Sox broadcast where he literally said how he credits Don Cooper for making him focus on staying over his front leg to get more tilt on his offspeed pitches and it also gave him much better command. This is what I mean about knowing the context.

And keep posting Holland's numbers as if he was a good pitcher that Coop just couldn't figure out. The guy can't pitch at the major league level. If you have a 6.00 ERA, trust me, it's not because of what the pitching coach told you. You just don't have ML stuff to even be remotely close to getting hitters out.

People around the league rave about him. Guys that pitch for him, previous pitchers, other coaches/ managers. Here's a quote for you from a guy he helped in Felipe Paulino:
"As soon as I signed here, in November, " says Paulino, "I got a few friends who called me, like Freddy Garcia, who played here, told me about Cooper, told me good things -- that he's a great pitching coach and I'm in good hands. I'm in good hands, so just follow this guy. And I'm going to. "

He's a master at a his craft. They say he's a master at molding the strengths of pitchers, so when a guy like Holland comes in with no stengths, it could be hard for anyone to work with. Prove me wrong with someone that's better.


27.) 28 Oct 2017 04:36:10
The only good thing Humber did in a White Sox uniform was pitch a no hitter, that's it. Polite, who i had never heard of, had one good season with the White Sox out of three. Miguel Gonzalez was much better when he was in Baltimroe, so he shouldn't even be on your list as someone who rebounded. I suppose you want to name Scott Downs as well huh, oh wait he doesn't fit your examples because he absolutely sucked with the White Sox. Of course the pitching coach isn't in charge of forming the team. He is in charge of the pitching staff. They are responsible for making sure the pitchers are ready and find any troubles they maybe having. Isn't this something you tried telling me earlier. That is what makes a pitching coach good. Dave Eiland got fired from the Yankees because he couldn't fix one guy: AJ Burnett.


28.) 28 Oct 2017 05:16:59
"Right, you know exactly what role Don Cooper had in the development of all of his pitchers. You're hilarious. "

No. I know that often, pitching coaches don't have as much influence in their pitcher's performance as it seems. Tim Lincecum's dad was his "coach". Jake Peavy used a trainer in the offseason who he credits for his success. Many pitchers (and hitters) do the same. So much of the success (and failure) of players across the game aren't exactly due to the pitching coach.

I don't know what influence these coaches actually have, and likely, you don't either.

Cooper is a well-respected pitching coach. I've accepted that. I really don't care if your opinion is he's the best ever or worst ever, but you cited several guys who's careers were "rebounded" when it full well isn't the case.

Players having a few good months doesn't constitute a rebounded career, or even a season. It means they are professional ballplayers who had enough skill to get to the majors in the first place. A rebounded career is like we saw out of J. A. Happ in Pittsburgh, or maybe even Jhoulys Chacin in San Diego this year. It isn't a few good months followed by really, really bad ones.

I'm not interested in "were they pivotal to a season for the White Sox", because that wasn't the scope of the discussion. Quit moving the goalposts. It was the idea that Cooper has turned all of these bums into studs. It really hasn't happened at high levels, as you're proposing. Again, Politte and Humber's careers were effectively over (not by age, mind you) after they bottomed out in Chicago. Other guys had similar stories.

But others did, in fact, benefit greatly from Don Cooper. It'd be silly to say he's a terrible pitching coach. He's very good, and his tenure with the same team is evidence.


29.) 28 Oct 2017 05:26:39
Biggest point is this:

You can make a statement and not be ridiculous about it. If you'd have just said, "Cooper is a very good pitching coach and players have come out of the woodwork to express their gratitude for his work. " No one can argue that.

But you can't just make a point. You have to take it to such ridiculous lengths, like saying he rebounded the careers of guys like Phil Humber and Cliff Politte. That is not only wrong, it's a beyond laughable suggestion that proves you'll say literally anything if it sounds good to you, even if you know it's wrong.

This is not a good quality and it leaves people at a point where no one can take you seriously. You're a smart kid, but you've lost any shred of credibility with your takes.

Before you post: stop and think about what you're saying. Maybe ask a friend who knows baseball to read it. Because some of what you post flies past ridiculous into the straight up hysterical. The irony is that you suggested that I'M like Skip Bayless.


30.) 28 Oct 2017 07:37:05
How do you give evidence on an opinion? If it’s opinion, it’s subjective and immeasurable.

Prospect rankings are projections, and usually ranked by the players' best possible outcomes (ceilings) . It’s why teams like the Giants, or the White Sox pre-2017 weren’t considered "top farm systems" (never mind the Giants routinely having more homegrown talent, of which they won three championships). Their farm talent doesn’t have high ceilings, according to scouts.

This is a subjective topic. And your opinion on the White Sox' 11-20 (or top 10) guys holds no more weight than anyone else’s on this site. (Based on your hilariously crazy take and unabashed homerism, I might suggest they mean less).

Can you please quit thinking so highly of yourself and your OPINIONS. You don’t know everything and you make yourself look bad regularly on this site.


31.) 28 Oct 2017 07:38:30
Another gem you threw in there:

Cliff Politte had a 4.52 ERA coming into Chicago. He had a 4.18 ERA in Chicago. After being released mid-season by the White Sox (you don't release good pitchers mid-season), he never pitched another inning in the majors. They did the exact opposite of "rebounding" his career. He threw 17 innings in the minors after his time with the White Sox. They literally destroyed his career in Chicago.


32.) 28 Oct 2017 16:21:04
^^^Don't know why that posted again.


33.) 28 Oct 2017 20:42:57
"But others did, in fact, benefit greatly from Don Cooper. It'd be silly to say he's a terrible pitching coach. He's very good, and his tenure with the same team is evidence. "

Thank You. This is the point I was making.

We could spend weeks debating on what exactly a rebounded season or career constitutes - How well do they have to pitch? How long do they have to sustain success? You personally don't care how good they were in a season, but as a Sox fan, yeah I do kind of care how well Polite did in '05. It helped win a world series. Humber never sustained sucess, but it was pretty awesome for him to throw a perfect game. You and many others don't care but that's why you aren't Sox fans. Could I have been more clear? Yes, especially with the amount of nit-picking that occurs on this site. I could nit-pick you and say "well Chacin has only had one pretty good year with San Diego, just like you said Polite only had one good year" But in reality, I would say yeah the pitching coach in SD probably had a pretty good part in Chacin "rebounding his career. " Those were guys that I listed off the top of my head that I remember Cooper helping out for at least part of a season after they were practically nothing, that helped the White Sox win ball games. I never said all those guys became studs. J. A. Happ is another good example and as I pointed out. Searage is really good too for similar reasons.

I also never said you need evidence for an opinion. I think usually people like you to have some justification for it, which if you read my previous post, is literally exactly what I said. Like Batman was saying he doesn't like most of the Sox prospects, that's fine, but saying things like "oh, Fulmer just sucks, or no way Collins can hit", it's hard to respect an opinion like that.

"I don't know what influence these coaches actually have, and likely, you don't either. " Although I'm not a pitcher, I have a pretty good idea of what these coaches do for guys and the difference in approach when a guys is really good and succeeding vs. a guy who is recently struggling or has even beeing struggling for a while.

"your opinion on the White Sox' 11-20 (or top 10) guys holds no more weight than anyone else’s on this site. " I'd love to be proved wrong here, but I think it's safe to say I probably have more knowledge on White Sox prospects than anyone I have read on this site. I'm not high on all the top guys either. I have pretty strong opinions on guys who I think won't ever turn out.


34.) 28 Oct 2017 23:27:12
It's not hard to create a standard for a rebounded career: were they good for a reasonable time after their "rebound season? " Rebound season meaning the time they were really, really good after years of being mediocre or bad.

If a guy never plays again after he leaves Chicago, it is safe to assume he never rebounded his career.

If a guy was genuinely and objectively bad after his time in Chicago, it's safe to say his career never rebounded.


35.) 29 Oct 2017 02:59:06
I would say in general if a guy goes from being really bad to even just serviceable, that's a rebounded career. But that's just me. Every case is different too and context matters.


36.) 01 Nov 2017 15:30:53
"if a guy goes from being really bad to even just serviceable, that's a rebounded career. "

So, if he was terrible before, had two good months, and then is terrible again, you're saying that's a rebounded career?

A rebounded career is generally justified by sustained success beyond a couple of months. J. A. Happ is a prime example of a rebounded career. A. J. Burnett's stint in Pittsburgh is another. They were great in Pittsburgh and continued to be great. Humber was good for a few months and became Philip Humber again.

If you want to use sentimental value, as you did—twice, that doesn't constitute rebounded success either. That Humber threw a perfect game shows that bad pitchers throw great games every once in a while. It also shows there's a great deal of luck involved in throwing one (a 72% fly ball rate that game, that's getting pretty lucky) .

I don't care what he meant to you, or if Politte "helped" win a WS (I'd contend any RP on a major league roster could have done the same) doesn't mean their careers were "rebounded". It means they had times in their careers where they were good. You probably won't stay in the majors very long if you don't have that quality. Coincidentally, neither of the two lasted much longer after their "rebound", which makes you wonder if it really ever happened.

You don't get to redefine terms simply because the term doesn't fit your argument.


37.) 02 Nov 2017 22:45:26
"You don't get to redefine terms "

A "rebounded career" is very subjective. It's also not really a term. Try to push your superiority complex aside for a minute and realize that you don't get to suddenly deem what its exact definition is.

I'm not really concerned with if you care about Cliff Politte. All I'm saying is that Cooper did something for him that allowed him to have one great year which was a year in which he was an integral piece to a WS championship team. As a White Sox fan, I personally deem that as a rebound. If you don't, it makes sense because 1. you didn't watch him pitch that year and 2. you could care less about the White Sox and their success.

Finally, no one cares about Phil Humber's fly ball rate in a perfect game. It's a perfect game, you have to execute to a pretty high extent. He was unbelievably efficient. You can't just read your statcast glossary and apply every advanced metric to every situation. I wonder what the avg. exit velo was or avg. launch angle was in that game? A fly ball can be a very productive/ efficient out. I'll take first pitch fly outs all day. But then again, that comes down to knowing the actual GAME of baseball, which you have yet to show any knowledge of. You are literally the nit-picking king. It's like explaining to a life-long Dodgers fan that Kirk Gibson's HR was a fluke. Good luck.


38.) 03 Nov 2017 13:13:24
Haha, I used to think your being obtuse was an act. Now I realize, you really are this obtuse.

1. Rebounded career is "subjective" but it's subjective in the way of saying "Michael Jordan was a great basketball player" is subjective. Obviously there's no "right" answer, but there's still a reasonable amount of answers. Your definition of half those guys would not be considered a rebound by most folks.

2. I used the fly ball rate to explain that there's a good bit of luck involved in his perfect game. His fly-ball rate was really high for what we've seen in a perfect game. That's all I stated. The point of it was: using a perfect game as the litmus for a good pitcher, or rebounded season, is like saying David Ross was this unbelievable catcher in 2016 because he hit a HR in Game 7.

3. The nit-picking king? You insisted on arguing with me because I put Billy Hamilton at the #1 spot, instead of the #7. GTFO with that nonsense. (Also, see your diatribe about my "luck" statement above. )

4. I know nothing about the ACTUAL game of baseball? So my advanced (and superior to yours) knowledge on stats means I know nothing about the game? You realize the Astros and Dodgers made it to the WS because they hired stat-nerds, and avoided hiring a bunch of guys who played Little League who think they are experts because they played once.

Advanced metrics is currency of baseball today. If you don't understand them (which you've routinely proven you don't), then I'd recommend you drop the act. No one buys it.


39.) 03 Nov 2017 22:33:48
1. Here you are, subjectively trying to define a topic that we've agreed is subjective. Unbelievable.

2. I never said Humber was a good career pitcher, nor did I imply that his perfect game was a litmus for that. Humber holds value to the White Sox and their fans. We don't care if you consider his perfect game being any sort of rebound or not. David Ross is a great example of my point. David Ross is a .220 career hitting backup catcher, but to Cub fans he'll always be a hero.

3. I commented on Hamilton hitting leadoff because that was your basis for why the Reds would trade him, "his OBP isn't doing him any favors" or something along those lines. Then you put him at the top of a lineup of a team we assume is trying to contend and your rationale is that "oh I really know Bochy. " Ok, well one thing we've learned in 150 years playing this game is that you put guys that get on base at the top of the lineup. That's not nit-picking, that's a fundamental principle of baseball.

4. You know the definition and how to read these advanced metrics, but you have little to no idea on how to properly apply them contextually. To properly do this, you have to know the intricacies of the game that you don't pick up when you stop playing after little league. Again we see your glaring superiority complex shine through because you're absolutely certain you know more about metrics or the game itself than anyone else. For instance, you knew what a pitcher's single-game fly ball rate was based on what is deemed "good" by statcast's general grids, but you don't understand that a fly ball can be a very productive/ efficient out. If you go back to the game, he generated a ton of soft contact. You can learn a lot about the game from the advanced metrics, but you can't say "for what we've seen in a perfect game" when Humber is 1 of 23 men to ever do it. It's foolish to try and generalize those starts and attribute one of the most exciting occurrences in baseball to luck.

To use your example of the Astros, Hinch literally said that the game is a mixture of both old school and new school philosophies, which is true. Look at how he managed game 7. He did not play the percentages at all. Advanced metrics is part of the currency of the game, but it is not the sole currency. Also, to say that the Astros and Dodgers being in the world series had nothing to do with old-school scouting is plain wrong. There is definitely a place for the stat nerds, but the game is not lost on the scouts who can see things that numbers can't measure.


40.) 05 Nov 2017 13:41:16
I'm going to skip to #4, since the others are mindless arguments I'm done with.

I absolutely know how to apply them contextually. Of course I know that a fly ball can be an effective out. I also recognize that throwing them at a rate of 72% is extremely rare, and most likely involves a good deal of luck, as any perfect game would. You're talking about a guy who allowed very low rates of soft contact. In 2012, almost 87% of all batted balls were hard or medium contact. Producing a game where 72% of your outs are on fly balls, and soft enough to be outs (or worse yet, relying on defense behind you) is most likely lucky. I could be wrong on that, but I think most with an understanding of the game and metrics would agree: it was pretty lucky.

I know what launch angle is, anyone who follows baseball knows that. But what you fail to understand is that. if those things are occurring, we'll see it in the bottom line. If a player is working on launch angle, or spin rate to reduce hard contact, or increase velocity, or whatever principle it is they are currently working on, if it's working, we'll see it in the final stat line. If, for example, Avisail Garcia is working on launch angle mixed with his exit velocity, we'll see more home runs.

Metrics and analytics are two steps ahead. They already understand the principles you keep mentioning. Fly Balls are why we use xFIP instead of just FIP.

Also, I've never claimed to know about metrics "more than anyone else. " I've just claimed to know them more than YOU. And quite frankly, I can argue the opposite, you understand how the game is played, but you have no idea how to critically analyze a player's performance. You know nothing of advanced metrics, how they are measured, or even what factors are considered in them. Again, if you had any clue about xFIP, you'd know that fly ball rate was already considered, thus, you wouldn't accuse anyone of not knowing the intricacies of the game.

We're all well aware that fly balls are effective out. We're all well aware that you should put OBP guys at the top of the order (and should be aware that not all teams do it) . We're all aware that teams are preaching launch angle and exit velocity. You literally know about the game as much as almost anyone on this page.

You're like an algebra student debating a calculus student. You understand basic principles, and think that my not mentioning them means I don't. No, I just have more information and a better metric to measure those exact things.


41.) 05 Nov 2017 16:37:00
To set the record straight, I know just as much about advanced metrics as you. It's not rocket science. Like 10% of it is knowing what the stat is/ what it measures and the other 90% is knowing how to use it and in what scenarios it supports a claim. I just don't need to throw out new measures that I hope no one else knows about so my points can't be challenged. What's been unfortunate for you in this process is that I know about advanced metrics as well.

A high fly ball rate is a measure you use over a longer period of time (a couple weeks, a month, or a whole season) . You can't call a good start (much less a perfect game) lucky because of a 72% fly ball rate. It's not sustainable over a longer period of time which is why it's a good measure for those time periods. What you need to understand is pitchers literally throw pitches where the optimal outcome is generating a weak fly ball (low exit velo, elevated launch angle) 1. Bc it's much easier to field than a ground ball and 2. because is usually very efficient. You can get very lucky in a start where you generate a ton of hard hit fly balls that your outfielders are diving for or catching on the warning track, but I'm saying that in that start at Safeco, Humber was executing. This is what I'm talking about - proper application of the metrics in appropriate scenarios. Yes, FIP and xFIP are two great new stats that are much better than ERA, but you don't compare pitchers xFIPs (or Fly ball rates) based on 1 start.

And everyone has the same numbers to look at, you don't have "more information", nor a "better metric. " You're acting like you invented them.

And to fix your analogy for you, you're the hot head college freshman calculus student that thinks they're coming in knowing everything, and I'm the Calc professor who is schooling you on the actual applications of these studies while simultaneously putting you in your place.


42.) 06 Nov 2017 08:00:02
Please, don't flatter yourself. You're way too obtuse to be a professor in anything other than how to BS people and pat your own back.

I really don't care what you think you know. If you think you're an expert on analytics, put your money where your mouth is. You know how baseball works. Good for you. You're on par with literally everyone on this site. Please quit with the "I know the intricacies of baseball". You've cited some concepts that we all know. This doesn't make you an expert.

You also seem way to obtuse to understand nuance. You're taking this Humber argument way too seriously and you're missing the overall point: whether it's luck, or whether it was a good start (subjective), it doesn't suggest, in any way, that Humber had a "rebounded career". Bad pitchers have good games. It's so easy to draw you in with mindless details. You argued with me about OBP at the top of the lineup (I actually agreed with you that it's a good principle, and explicitly stated so), or that knowing certain metrics (i. e. xFIP) means we already know certain things (i. e. how effective a fly ball out is) . Instead, you argued about how xFIP is measured over a certain period of time (not the argument I made) . You can't see the nuance of an argument, and it's why we have to come full circle about 16 times before you finally understand what anyone says. Just read through these debates: people have to repeat themselves multiple times before you come to understand.

And I have to laugh at your scolding me for my supposed "superiority complex" and then you trying to "put me in my place. " You'd argue with someone saying the sun rises in the east if it means you can argue with it. And it's so easy to bait you into a mindless argument. All I have to do is say an unflattering comment about the White Sox, or disagree with you, and I get to have fun at your expense for the next week or so.

Let's be honest: you know nothing about me. And if you did, you would never accuse me of not knowing analytics or anything about the game of baseball. Your doing so is a a desperate pot shot to try and prove you're right. It doesn't. Your ad hominem attacks don't make you more right. Please take a logic course.

You want to prove me wrong? Bring up some stats and justify your argument. Metrics and stats are how we evaluate players. It's the only effective means to evaluate players, and every team in baseball is working on creating better, more effective proprietary metrics because it's the only way to measure player performance. In light of that, the only way I believe we can argue is through stats and metrics. That a guy is practicing launch angle is not an argument. It's what EVERYONE is practicing. Bring up some actual stats to show IT'S WORKING. That's the only way we can argue. You don't need to be an expert in the intricacies of baseball to know how BABIP regression works, or how a player with one good game (lucky or not) isn't suddenly a great pitcher with a turned-around career.

Want to show you're the professor? Put up some stats or shut your damn mouth. You look like a fool.


43.) 06 Nov 2017 23:30:14
Triggered.


44.) 18 Nov 2017 13:02:50
WOW, I step away from this site for like 4 months and miss an actual white-sox conversation!

Admittedly I scanned the second half of this conversation bc let's be real, this was a damn novel. (Also didn't see the original argument this stemmed from)

But some thoughts:

1) The Whitesox currently have an elite farm system and yes it is deep.

2) "Fulmer is garbage" is a little bit theatric. His small sample size in the MLB shows some promise, but long term I think he's a really good reliever.

3) "Collins can't hit"- By simply checking stats you're right, but they pretty much started to restructure his swing in the second half this year and he continues to be an on-base machine. The guy probably isn't coming up for a few years so I'm not going to judge his growth by BA quite yet.

4) My two favorite franchises are owned by Jerry Reinsdorf. Calling him a "foolish old man" is truly accurate and is probably an understatement.

5) While I don't think were getting Machado, It's pretty well known jerry loves the Whitesox more than the Bulls and has said he'll get "another one" before his time is up. Yes I know he's been cheap in the past but I wouldn't be surprised if he emptied the pocket books a bit more than usual once we start competing again.

7) Saw something about Don Cooper, C'mon man judging him by team ERA doesn't show the entire picture. That dude is literally the reason we have a ring in 05 and has made the likes of Garbage pitchers into average. He's probably the best asset we have in our organization right now (not kidding) .

Once again not even sure what this argument is about but thought I'd jump in without reading context because its the internet and I'm bored at work.


 

 

 

Chi Sox's rumour replies

 

Click To View This Thread

05 Aug 2021 02:03:57
Bennett has had accurate "scoops" in the past. Given how the Rockies are ran, I wouldn't be shocked if they tried to at one point throw Michael Kopech's name into discussions.

I literally laid out concrete evidence for you in a nicely formatted numbered list. If you go back and slowly re-read, my only speculation in that entire last post was the bit about Colorado's real intention to trade Story vs. what they tried to portray in the media. I know this is like the third time I'm saying this, but your lack of reading comprehension is a big deal on here because a good chunk of your replies don't have a lot to do with what I previously said.

If you're in agreement that the Rockies should have traded Story, then I'm not calling you wrong. If your argument is that the Rockies should have NOT traded Story BECAUSE they can just recoup a comp pick that is BEST CASE SCENARIO a 45 FV, then I'll call you out because my package was equal in prospect value based on values that you first referenced. Equating or slightly beating the comp pick's value should have been every team's intention when going after Story.

It's funny because what you are doing by saying that Bennett's scoop didn't have a shroud of truth behind it is SPECULATING, lol. Unless, of course, you work in the front office of either Chicago or Colorado.

Chi Sox

 

 

Click To View This Thread

05 Aug 2021 01:32:24
Show me where I predicted the Giants to lose in the first round of the playoffs. I'm just acknowledging that their bullpen could end up being their downfall, as it's probably the worst among likely playoff teams.

Even I wanted to make that kind of prediction, the Giants may still have to win their way into the divisional series.

Also, do records against .500 or better teams in the regular season have any correlation to playoff success historically? Genuinely curious.

Chi Sox

 

 

Click To View This Thread

04 Aug 2021 14:41:07
My point was that package should have been enough to acquire Story, yes. If their best case scenario now is to get a 45 FV hitter to fall to them at the end of the first round, then that player is of equal prospect value to the package I was offering from the White Sox. Have we not established that?

So what do we know?

1. We know that Story was a somewhat sought after commodity from teams like Cincinnati, the Yankees, and then some other landing spots were he could move over to 2B like the Mets and White Sox. However, his list of suitors, especially given his down year, wasn't massive.

2. We know that other rental 2Bman like Eduardo Escobar, Cesar Hernandez and even Josh Harrison were traded at the deadline for much lesser returns than the one I offered for Story. So, we have a relative market value established.

3. We have a pretty good idea that a Story deal never really got close given no storing rumors at at point in the deadline process. We have rumors of Colorado asking for huge returns that would frankly cause other GMs to hang up the phone or are frankly unbelievable.

If I can speculate, IMO the Rockies always wanted to trade Story. In the weeks heading up to the deadline, they tried to improve their leverage by publicly making it seem like keeping him and getting the comp pick was absolutely fine with them figuring teams would call them pretty frequently anyway with Story being one of, if not the best middle INF option on the market in their opinion.

When they asked for the moon in early talks, teams obviously balked because it became clear that the Cubs would trade Baez too and the market slowly started to include guys like Escobar, Hernandez, Frazier, Schoop, Harrison, heck even Trea Turner apparently, etc., all of which having better 2021s than Story.

Then suitor after suitor goes with other options for pennies on what Colorado wanted for less production to date, then they likely tried to reengage with some teams to little interest or elss than what they originally offered, and then the deadline passes and their GM quickly and somewhat oddly brings up the comp pick again publicly. Hey Feasel, didn't you already say you were fine with the comp pick? Knowing that this decision (or IMO, overplaying his hand in marketing Story) would look pretty bad to the baseball community, he quickly had to remember and reiterate that they're "perfectly fine" with how things played out, but I don't believe that.

When's the last time that right after the deadline, a GM mentions a comp pick for an un-traded player? If it's a foregone conclusion that a player will leave your org in FA, a good player at that, then the rational person says "Ok, trade him. "

So, again, Sheets, Thompson and Ramos was probably never on the table. Maybe early, but certainly not last week. If it was and the Rockies balked at it, then fine. They either over played their hand as I'm speculating, OR they were truly never intending on trading Story, to which I and and pretty much all other baseball analysts raise an eyebrow to.

But the market dictated that my package would have been a pretty solid return for Story. Teams knew they had to get close to or beat the potential comp pick's value in these talks, and that's exactly what my package did given the information that YOU brought into the discussion.

I would think as org, walking away with three players, one of which major league-ready, for you best player in Story is not only a better option for a team entering a (probably long) rebuild, but it's also a much better selling point to fans that you're ultimately trying to appease.

That's about all I'll say on the Story bit because in the end it doesn't even matter much. And i'm really not as concerned with tallying victories on here as you are.

I don't think there's any kind of prize on here, Nate.

Chi Sox

 

 

Click To View This Thread

03 Aug 2021 14:02:55
Right, you'll focus on the one bad move he had while ignoring the acquisitions of 2 AL Cy Young candidates last offseason along with a string of solid minor moves that have kept them 18 games above .500 despite the most WAR lost by injury in the AL i. e. the kind of stuff that only our lord and savior Farhan Zaidi gets credit for in your book.

Careful Nate! Saying that the White Sox will lose to the Rays or Astros in the playoffs is currently an "unconfirmed take", so you can't be so certain. Again, it's nice to see how hard you're rooting against them.

The Giants also still have to get to a playoff SERIES. Would be a shame for a nice season's work to go down the drain after a one game playoff. But they'll fine, I mean, the Dodgers and Padres don't have anyone that can touch Jake McGee so they're in the clear.

Chi Sox

 

 

Click To View This Thread

02 Aug 2021 22:20:42
"Cesar Hernandez, who they just acquired for a 35+ pitcher, will certainly outperform Madrigal this year and may do the same next year. "

Yes, the 31-year-old 2B, who you just got for an unrated prospect and is hitting .237 and 101 wRC+ will be "certainly outperform" Madrigal next year"

Reading not your top subject here, bud? Slow down kiddo. I said certainly outperform this season when Madrigal is on the shelf, and MAYBE next year. I wouldn't count on it, but it's possible. The Sox could also just grab another second baseman too i. e. Chris Taylor, Semien, Escobar, etc.

I'm glad Jake McGee is all the Giants need in the playoffs. I'm sorry to say, but they probably have the worst bullpen of playoff caliber teams. That'll be tough come October.

Again the White Sox have literally six relievers as good or better than Rogers and McGee. LMAO. SIX!

Chi Sox

 

 

 

Chi Sox's talk replies