MLB Trade Rumors Member Posts


Chi Sox's Profile

Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded

No Profile Picture uploaded


Where from:

Favourite player:

Best team moment:



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


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

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

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) .


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


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


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


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


Bummer (L)
Fry (L)
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.



25 Oct 2020 03:36:11
White Sox/Mets/Pirates

Last shot.

White Sox Get:

Brandon Nimmo OF

Mets Get:

Joe Musgrove RHP, Adam Engel OF, Zack Burdi RHP

Pirates Get:

Jonathan Stiever RHP, Micker Adolfo OF, Matthew Allan RHP, Shervyen Newton SS

Chi Sox

1.) 25 Oct 2020 12:14:53
In this trade, I don’t think the Sox even need to give up another significant prospect. They could add a couple guys like Matt Foster and Yermin Mercedes and the Pirates walk away with six young players to develop.

I still think the Pirates could get a much better trade for Musgrove elsewhere, but it’s obvious the White Sox need to add.

The Pirates have no use for Micker Adolfo (who is out of options) and the Sox are freeloading on this one.

2.) 25 Oct 2020 17:51:07
Eh, I'd say Adolfo could get some some ABs in one of the corner OF spots against LHP at the very least. We're talking about displacing Jose Osuna and Anthony Alford and the Pirates after all. Both of those guys haven't been good in substantial sample sizes. If there's a DH, they there would definitely be a use for Pittsburgh, but in that case, maybe Mercedes is the more secure bat.

I think the key now would be to get BVW to part with Allan. After this deal they could go after Springer, or Realmuto and use Engel as a CF platoon (JBJ would be a good partner), plus another FA starter. That would give the Mets a legit shot at the postseason in 2021 imo.

To me, Pittsburgh should take this. With only 2 years of control and an 8-start sample kind of sweeting our impression of Musgrove, one really good pitching prospect and a solid one plus 2 upside, high risk PP prospects is not a bad haul.

I think each team improves, and I'm not sure the Sox would trade 6 for one, especially when all 6 are 40-man guys. If the Sox included Foster instead of Burdi, maybe they could get NY to include a better last piece than Newton.

3.) 03 Nov 2020 16:57:48
I think the Giants will acquire Luis Robert for Chris Shaw, Luis Basabe, and Andrew Suarez.

Sounds ridiculous?

Now re-read the return the White Sox are giving up for Brandon Nimmo. Mine MIGHT be better.



15 Oct 2020 20:40:23
White Sox/Mets/Pirates

White Sox Get:

Brandon Nimmo OF

Mets Get:

Joe Musgrove RHP

Pirates Get:

Matthew Thompson RHP
Micker Adolfo OF
Zack Burdi RHP

Chi Sox

1.) 21 Oct 2020 02:14:38
A trade from a guy named "Chi Sox" that gives the White Sox a really good player without giving up anything in return.

Seems awfully suspicious.

2.) 21 Oct 2020 14:03:28
Before Chi Sox jumps in with some lousy defense of his lousy trade, here are the facts:

Adolfo is the "best" player in this trade, and he's a 24-year-old who hasn't played but a handful of games above high-A ball (and it was a good AA stint, either) .

Thompson is a 20-year-old with 2.0 IP in his pro career. A kid with pretty major control issues and consistency issues, according to scouts. A year away from baseball did not do him any favors.

And Zack Burdi was a cute entry. Get him in the same organization as his older brother. Only problem is, Zack is far worse than his brother. Zack loves to serve up home runs.

Outside of clearly being a homer, I don't know why you'd think anyone would be interested in this package for guys with 3 remaining years of control each. This is clearly one-sided and you know it.

And please spare yourself of trying to defend any of the players you put in the package or trying to downplay Nimmo/ Musgrove. It won't end well.

3.) 21 Oct 2020 22:39:03
Good to see the Statbook is back under a new name just in time for the offseason. Thanks for the feedback.

4.) 21 Oct 2020 22:55:42
I'm willing to say this is light for the Sox to Pit.

What I will add though:

Stiever could be another option as the headliner, you make a good point about Thompson not having the pro-ball looks yet. But he has a projectable frame and smooth delivery that projects as a starter long term.

There were reports that teams liked Adolfo's alternate sight numbers, particularly some insane batted ball metrics that give a guy like him upside. The swing and miss issues? Undoubtedly a concern.

Burdi has potential back-end stuff (particularly 98 mph at almost 2600 rpms with his heater) . It's not crazy to take a chance on that.

5.) 22 Oct 2020 18:41:42
I should be a little more fair. You mentioned decent players. But if I'm Pittsburgh, and I'm giving up Joe Musgrove, who has been stellar and has 3 years of team control still, I'm wanting an elite prospect. I think Andrew Vaughn would be someone who would get the talks going, and even then, he's probably not enough.

6.) 22 Oct 2020 18:42:55
As far as this proposal goes, another thing to consider: there's almost no reason to Chicago to be involved. The Mets could get Musgrove (as they are in this deal) and send Brandon Nimmo and another prospect (Matthew Allan, for example) to Pittsburgh and it'd be a pretty fair deal.

7.) 22 Oct 2020 20:36:04
But Nimmo makes little sense for Pittsburgh. They aren't contending in the next 2 (not 3) seasons when they'd have control of him. That's why the Sox are involved. Pittsburgh is in the thick of a rebuild without a light at the end of the tunnel yet.

Even if the Sox were crazy and wanted to offer Vaughn for Nimmo, how does he fit for the Mets? Not great at all. Dylan Cease or Michael Kopech? Not great either because you don't really know what they are going to give you in 2021. The Mets, assuming they want to contend right a away with new ownership, need 2 SPs (maybe 3) and a CFer (as a start) . They can expend one of their 4 (all pretty quality btw) left handed corner OFers to get Musgrove for Nimmo, who are pretty close in value.

Musgrove will be cheaper than bringing Stroman back or going after Bauer/ Gausman, so they can go hard after George Springer maybe. That's seemingly a good fit.

Andrew Vaughn, a top-20 prospect and one of the best bats in the minors, for 2 years (not 3) of Joe Musgrove? Cmon, let's not do this. He had a good 8-start sample this year, but we can't treat it like it was a 30-start sample. He's a very good pitcher, but isn't worth $55 million+ in surplus value, as you're suggesting.

Another iteration could be the Sox throwing Adam Engel to the Mets to take over Marisnick's role and have them give another prospect to the Pittsburgh, maybe Allen as you suggested.

8.) 23 Oct 2020 00:34:29
Sure. It makes no sense for Pittsburgh, but if they are forced to choose between the package the White Sox gave, or Brandon Nimmo, they'll take Nimmo a thousand times.

And according to Fangraphs, Spotrac, Cots' Baseball Contracts, and Baseball-Reference, Joe Musgrove is a free agent after 2023. That's 3 years of a budding ace. Musgrove was literally a 3.3 WAR player in 2019. It's not like you're trading for Jeff Samardzija here.

But this is what you do. You make outlandish ideas, then you try to downplay the players involved so you can justify your outlandish idea.

The moral of the story is: Pittsburgh isn't giving up Joe Musgrove for a bunch of lottery tickets. The Giants got more for a rental of Sam Dyson than the White Sox are giving up for 3 years of a controllable starter.

If you want guys like Brandon Nimmo or Joe Musgrove, you actually have to give up real talent for them. You can try and twist and contort the conversation to move the goalposts 18,000 times, but it won't alleviate the fact that your post was 100% a homer post. Just accept it and move on.

9.) 23 Oct 2020 00:38:46
Also, you thinking the issue is that the Mets aren't getting enough shows how woefully you're missing the point.

Pittsburgh is not giving up Joe Musgrove for a bunch of nobody prospects.

That's like saying the Marlins could get Lucas Giolito for Harold Ramirez and Jon Berti. It's as outlandish and silly.

10.) 23 Oct 2020 00:46:01
Lastly, it's SIGNIFICANTLY more likely that the Pirates would get Andrew Vaughn for Joe Musgrove over the paltry, laughable, borderline contemptuous package you have Pittsburgh getting for him.

I'm not convinced Chicago would give up Vaughn, for what it's worth. And I don't blame them. But it's certainly what would and should be expected from Pittsburgh.

Also, for someone who bloviates about "surplus value" all the time, you conveniently seem to forget about it when it comes to your own team.

One calculator gave this rundown:
Musgrove: 39M
Nimmo: 26M
White Sox package: 9.5.

So either you don't believe in surplus, or you're an absolutely massive homer. Please let me know in the comments below which option it is.

11.) 23 Oct 2020 06:06:06
Statbook, I know it's been a long year, but you know what year it is, right? If they are free agents in 2023, that means they are signed through 21 and 22. So 2 seasons remaining. It's not after the 2023 season, it's before. Spotrac even has handy visualizations to make it easier for the easily confused. 17, 18, 19 were his pre-arb years. That extra year makes a big difference in his value. But yada, yada, yada, I know. You still think it's bad.

I'll amend and say Stiever, Thompson and Adolfo gets the ball rolling. 2 40+s and an upside-40 for mister budding ace after a nice 8 starts against the central divisons. Dyson got 2 low-end 40s and a 35.

Dylan Cease could also be in play, but I'm sure they want their new pitching PD staff to get a crack at him plus a new ML pitching coach eventually. If he improves the spin efficiency on his FB (albeit easier said than done), watch out. Or just start throwing a cutter when you already cut your 99 mph 4-seamer and pull a Corbin Burnes. He doesn't make a lot of sense for the Mets, but 5 years of him

Im also not missing the point by sending more to NY. They would sent a prospect to PIT that they like more. It's literally the point of a three team deal. Engel or even a guy like Matt Foster could bring immediate value to NY for which they'd part with a prospect.

So potentially:

NYM: Musgrove, Engel

CHW: Nimmo

PIT: Steiver, Thompson, Adolfo, and Thomas Szapucki

After all, it's the Mets getting the "budding ace".

12.) 23 Oct 2020 16:52:36
I'll amend my statement to say that adding Stiever doesn't even begin to move the needle.

Since you love surplus value so much, I went in and adjusted the numbers to your newest proposal. Based on a few calculators you can find, here's some numbers I found:

Musgrove: 39.8
Nimmo: 26.4
Szapucki: 5.4
Stiever: 4.7
Engel: 5.0 (I'm being generous and changing it from a zero)
Thompson: 4.1
Adolfo: 3.0

So, if you're keeping track at home, here's how this all works out:

Pirates: Give up 39.8M, get 17.2M. They LOSE 22.6M in value.
Mets: Give up 31.8M, get 44.8. They GAIN 13.0M in value.
White Sox: Give up 16.8M, get 26.4M. They GAIN 9.6M in value.

Yeah, I'm not sure why the Pirates would want to give up the best player in that trade and also get the worst return in said trade.

The other factor is that I fudged the numbers to make Adam Engel more valuable than he probably is, simply out of knowing he could be valuable going forward. Also, we don't know how the teams actually value any of the players going forward, it could be higher, could be lower.

But the initial trade in no way even gets the needle moving.

13.) 23 Oct 2020 16:59:29
Now, if you substitute Cease for Stiever, it actually makes a lot of sense. But it's quite telling that the reasonable trade that makes sense is the concession trade for you.

The point in all of this is: for a guy who really gets quite arrogant about "surplus value", you seem to conveniently ignore it when it comes to your beloved White Sox.

I'm still waiting for your reply: do you not actually believe in surplus value numbers, or are you just a massive homer? Please respond in the comments below.

14.) 23 Oct 2020 18:58:19
You pulling those numbers from baseballtradevalues. com does very little for your argument, I hope you understand that. That's not a few calculators, that's one. It's been a couple of offseasons now where we have established you don't understand surplus value in both baseball trades, nor it the basic sense of economics. It's not arrogant to reference it in trades when it's literally how buiness, in all sectors, is handled. It's a core principle of economics.

The biggest fallacy in a calculator like that is that they put every player on a uniform scale, as in they treat their values as if every team would value them exactly the same. For example, a 5-win projected player is much more valuable to a 88-projected win team than the 75-projected win team. So, does it recognize the position the Mets are in with their OFers and SPs? No. Does it recognize the small amount of "MTV" around Musgrove on the team? No. It's their "value" in a vacuum.

I'd guess a +/ - $10M confidence interval on those numbers if I ran accuracy diagnostics from previous years.

You don't even understand how team control works, go figure. But tell me more about surplus value.

Its ok though, you have a handy calculator to guide you; one that I'm sure GMs across to league reference throughout their discussions.

15.) 23 Oct 2020 20:49:54
As much as I disagree with John Bitzer, his numbers are no better or worse than yours. Your valuation of Andrew Vaughn (55M) and his (45M) aren't that different. I'd imagine if you asked other experts, their number would fall somewhere between 40-50M. You obviously put a premium on his value because you like what team he plays for.

That being said, you may not like the numbers on guys like Stiever and others from Bitzer, but the margin of error is probably not going to make this suddenly a great trade for Pittsburgh. (Unless of course they are absolutely in love with one or several of those players) .

And your issue with Bitzer's site is exactly what you're doing. You're saying, "He's a very good pitcher, but isn't worth $55 million+ in surplus value". That's YOUR value (and likely not even one single GM's value, outside of maybe Rick Hahn) . And 39.8M likely isn't the value the Pirates have on Musgrove. Cherington's value is probably much higher.

Obviously team needs and situational context change the value on players. For what it's worth, I don't typically like those calculators, but it's one of the few that's readily available to attach a number to a player.

Can you agree that your "Vaughn is worth $55M" is a total guess? At one point, Christian Arroyo had a value of over 25M. He obviously never amounted to that. And at one point, Mike Yastrzemski had a value of 0. Now it's somewhere aroung 50-60M.

This is where the arrogance comes into play. Surplus value on prospects, especially, assumes that all of the scouting reports are correct.

I acknowledge the chance that someone like Jonathan Stiever or Micker Adolfo could be massive stars. I also acknowledge that they could be out of pro baseball in 3 years. We don't know.

But strangely enough, you insist that every young player that has ever been a part of the White Sox organization is a future Hall of Famer, and they always conveniently are valued at their 99th percentile projection. And when you don't like the values someone else places on them, you go on a tirade where you change the subject every other post because it's the only chance you might have to feel like you're still in the race.

Newsflash: I'm only talking to you because it's funny to get a rise out of you. I'm sitting in quarantine bored to tears and trolling you brings me a lot of comedic relief.

Now, enjoy watching your White Sox forever be Chicago's bridesmaid. Toodles.

16.) 23 Oct 2020 21:53:38
You mean you are just trolling and don't actually believe the stuff you're spewing? Ya don't say.

My thing with Vaughn is, find me one scouting report that is skeptical of his hit and power tool. Literally one. Sox pitchers said all spring and summer camp that he was one, if not the toughest hitter for them to get out in inter-squads, and that's including all the ML guys. There's a reason why he wasn't moved for Lance Lynn at the deadline this year, and Lance Lynn is a better pitcher than someone like Musgrove. I'm high on him, yes. But so are many others across the industry.

Even as high as I am on Vaughn, I don't think I've ever seen a prospect lauded more than Vlad Jr., and he hasn't exactly hit the ground running based on the standards the industry set for him. He has some pretty significant launch angle issues that he needs to correct to hit his potential. Not to mention keeping his body in shape. Vaughn is no sure think because no prospect is a sure thing. $55 million was indeed an estimate for Vaughn, based on what 60-grade position players typically produce through their 6-years of control. It wasn't pulled out of my you-know-what. You presented the trade value. com stuff as the biblical word to trades.

I don't know why you think I'm in love with every Sox prospect. They have an average system currently, if that. That's why my thought to get creative was with this 3-teamer. The original one was light, I've conceded that. Getting a good RFer is not going to be easy for them, which is why there's a decent chance they end up with one of Pederson, Grossman, JBJ, or someone in that realm.

Nimmo may be the Mets' best option to trade out of their group, and the probability that they trade one of Nimmo, Conforto, Davis, Smith or McNiel jumps up even higher if there's no DH in the NL in 2021. The Pirates can bet on Musgrove to improve his stock further in the next half a year or another full one, but he may not get more valuable than right now. If it does take someone like Dylan Cease, a top-50 prospect a year ago who sits 99 mph on his FB (& like I said, a shape tweak away from it being an elite pitch) with 2 plus breaking balls and 5 years of control, the Sox consider it, depending on if they are confident enough in their plan for him moving forward as well as who they can land in free agency.

If we don't somewhat trust scouting reports while also considering each team's context, then what are we even doing on here?

17.) 23 Oct 2020 22:48:28
Good grief kiddo. This is too funny.

I think you're in love with every scout because the moment I even slightly suggested that some teams might not hold a 55M value, you lose your ever-loving mind. It's hilarious to watch you slobber all over yourself trying to defend the White Sox so hard.

I mean, it's cute that one of their 8 remaining fans has stuck around this long. At least you'll be able to tell the other 400 bandwagons about it later on.

Anyhoo, I'll give you a call when the White Sox DFA Andrew Vaughn in 3 seasons to make room for J. A. Happ.

Until then, you can ask your dad what 2005 was like and what it was like watching the worst World Series champions in recent history.

Now, back to Spanish homework. Mom says you have a C in it.

18.) 24 Oct 2020 07:10:48
The team that went 11-1 in the postseason, knocked out the previous 2 defending champions, and had a starting staff throw 4 STRAIGHT COMPLETE GAMES was "the worst World Series champions in recent history. " We won't see a team every go 11-1 in the postseason in a very long time, possibly not ever again.

Since you like wagers, I'd bet the house that the Sox win more games than the Giants over the next 5 seasons. Farhan should be able to "wave his magic wand" by then, right? And since the Sox are the "bridesmaids of Chicago", I'd do the same bet for the Cubs. How about the Bay Area? Do the Giants win more than the A's in the next 5 seasons? Good luck with that. Who's really the bridesmaid? Have fun getting hyped over Donovan Solano over the next few years. Super exciting stuff.

I'll say it again, Zaidi says his prayers every night hoping to build a core as good as Rick Hahn did. They have a very, very long way to go, but lucky for you they have a solid guy that has a chance to get them back to contention.

Do all of us a favor and stick to the trade discussion. The frustrated attempts at personal attacks are a waste of time. But we've learned that's the only possible route when people present compelling facts that tend to hurt your narratives. The whole "kiddo" thing is getting a little weird, I might add.

19.) 24 Oct 2020 15:52:31
"Do all of us a favor and stick to the trade discussion. The frustrated attempts at personal attacks are a waste of time. "

Kind of difficult to do when any disagreement with you makes you go into overdrive. You can't handle someone who doesn't act like a raging White Sox homer along with you.

So you make up nonsensical "surplus value" numbers that are all ridiculously high. Then, when someone else throws out numbers, they are conveniently "from the wrong source" (meanwhile, you fail to even source yours) .

And then, to cap it off, you insist on bringing up comments from THREE YEARS AGO. Seriously. You can't let that one go, can you? If you're adamant that I don't take up any space in your head, then quit bringing it up.

Moral of the story, you want people to "stick to trade discussions", but you can't handle those conversations. You can't handle anyone disagreeing with you. Because you're a child. And until you stop acting like a child, I will continue calling you one.

Hopefully mom buys you that Luis Robert jersey for Christmas. Helpful hint: Wash the dishes a few times. That'll make her love you more.

Let me know when you're ready to be disagreed with and then we can talk baseball. Capeesh?

20.) 24 Oct 2020 17:42:11
The surplus estimates are my own. Believe it or not, people can think for themselves. But again, me throwing a value out for Vaughn was a vague estimate, not a presentation of absolute value as you did. That calculator will always leave out important context. It also had a bunch of missing, wrong, or outdated information.

I have been consistently sticking to trade talk, but then you keep brining up my parents and calling the 05 Sox a bad team. It couldn't be more off topic. Then when you're wrong about things (Nimmo/ Musgrove control and knowing how player control works, the 05 Sox not actually being a bad team, the White Sox rebuild looking pretty darn good, etc. ), the topic is conveniently dropped.

I'm no more of a raging homer than you are. Evan Longoria for a top-100 prospect? Saying he's not been a terrible deal for SF? Saying the Giants will win 3 more before the Sox win 1? Zaidi having a magic wand? Seriously, look in the mirror.

You can't say something as dumb as "Hopefully mom buys you that Luis Robert jersey for Christmas. Helpful hint: Wash the dishes a few times. That'll make her love you more. " and then call me a child. It makes no sense. It's just flat out rude and weird. There's never been a more childish response on this site. But I'd imagine if this wasn't an anonymous forum, your style would suddenly change.

21.) 03 Nov 2020 17:37:22
LOL, Rick Hahn just hired a 76-year-old, washed up manager who will probably lose any ounce of respect from the young, diverse clubhouse that Hahn has built.

Between his comments on kneeling for the anthem, his old-school antics, and how polarizing he's been in nearly every clubhouse he's ever managed, it truly is remarkable how badly Rick Hahn and the White Sox screwed the pooch in this hire.

And to think, the fired Rick Renteria for an objectively worse option.

You should hope the Angels hire Bobby Evans as their GM. It may be the only shot at getting a worse hire this offseason.

22.) 05 Nov 2020 13:21:21
The TLR hire was 100% Jerry Rinesdorf. He pulled the rug out from underneath his executive of the year.

23.) 05 Nov 2020 17:26:50
It seems that Rick Hahn isn't doing a great job of demanding his owner trust him to make necessary baseball hires.

Also, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in awards handed out by a magazine that has been out of print since 2012. But when you're the White Sox and you want attention to stay relevant, I guess you take what you can get.

24.) 05 Nov 2020 20:01:42
Did you watch the Last Dance on ESPN? Jerry's going to Jerry. TLR is a friend of his, and the hire contradicts everything Hahn said he was looking for in a manager in his end-of-the-year press conference. He presumably wanted Hinch, Roberts, or Cora, but Jerry vetoed.

Jerry has been holding the team back for years and holding back Hahn as well. Hahn wanted to to rebuild when he took over in 2012 but Rinesdorf insisted on them trying to compete with mediocre payrolls and a bad player dev. group. It took Hahn until 2017 to finally get him to buy in, and now after Hahn got his way, the team is loaded.




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


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?!?!?


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.



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

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.



14 Oct 2017 04:30:49
Chicago White Sox 2019 Opening Day

Tim Anderson SS
Yoan Moncada 2B
Manny Machado 3B
Jose Abreu 1B
Eloy Jimenez LF
Avisail Garcia RF
Zack Collins C
Adam Jones CF
Nicky Delmonico DH

Noah Syndergaard
Michael Kopech
Alec Hansen
Lucas Giolito
Carlos Rodon

Noah Syndergaard Trade (2018 Offseason):
Headlined by Luis Robert, Dylan Cease, Spencer Adams

Chi Sox

1.) 17 Oct 2017 01:43:53
That Syndergaard trade is a joke.

2.) 18 Oct 2017 15:11:55
Why @thestatbook? I think by the end of next year, the Mets could be looking at a big rebuild. Robert will probably be a top 10 prospect by the end of next season. Maybe 3 top 100s is needed. What part about it is a joke?

3.) 18 Oct 2017 16:57:59
I can see you are delusional. Mets aren't trading Synderggard, and that wouldn't be enough for him.

4.) 18 Oct 2017 19:58:29
Syndergaard has barely 2 full seasons of MLB service time. He's still got 4 more years, and by next season, it's still 3 full years.

It's going to take at least 3 of Chicago's top 5 prospects to even get the Mets to consider a trade. The price tag would completely negate all the White Sox had done in their rebuild.

No one is getting Syndergaard for that cheap. The price tag you suggested, you're talking someone like Dan Straily, not a top 10 starter.

5.) 18 Oct 2017 20:29:54
By the end of next season, Robert and Rutherford will be top 5 and Adams will be top 10. Maybe it takes Robert, Rutherford, and Burger to get him. 2 top 25 players and a top 100. Nothing is negated either, look at the lineup. Plus a top 4 pick in June.

I think you guys know your baseball, but you're struggling in your valuation of prospects. Dan Straily for a guy that is ALREADY a top 25 prospect, at 19 years old?

All i'm saying is that when the Mets finish 5th in the east and have a weak farm, they're going to look at a rebuild.

6.) 19 Oct 2017 01:56:00
1. You have literally zero clue where guys will be ranked by the end of next year. None. This is pure homerism and blind belief. Those guys are very good, but let's calm down. Guys will get hurt. Some will tank. Players from other teams will rise.

2. No, I'm not struggling on my evaluation. The Marlins were literally asking for 2 top 25 prospects for Dan Straily. The Padres asked the same for Brad Hand, who is a reliever. The Mets will want the moon along with Neptune for Syndergaard.

3. The Mets have an incredibly strong farm system and a solid young core. I laugh at White Sox fans who think they are the pinnacle of strong farms. It was only a few years back their farm was barren. Let's not act like Rick Hahn is this developmental genius. He hasn't accomplished anything other than trading good MLB guys for good MiLB guys.

7.) 19 Oct 2017 09:13:35
1. If Chris Sale is tradeable, then so is Syndergaard. MLB has Robert at 22 right now on their prospect list, and I count at least 12 guys who will probably lose their eligibility in 2018. Everyone expects him to tear up A ball, so it's really not crazy to guess he ends up ranked around 7-12 at seasons end. Some writers are questioning if he's going to force the hand of Hahn and force an MLB call-up in 2018 - again 20 years of age. Sale got the #1 overall prospect and, at the time, a top 40 prospect along with 2 upside guys. Sale is also a better pitcher with practically zero injury history.

2. Wonder why Brad Hand is still on the Padres and Straily with Miami? Because they were not that motivated to move them with those crazy valuations.

3. The Mets do not currently have a good system. ZERO top 100s. Yes Rosario and Smith just graduated and look like they'll be pretty good, but outside of them, their system is nowhere near "incredibly strong. " Most credible website/ writers have them as a bottom 5 system.

4. Look at the good teams these days. Most of them have torn it down and are thriving with young talent (Yankees, Cubs, Astros, Royals a couple years ago) . The Cubs motivated a shift for the Sox, wouldn't be surprised if the Yanks do the same for the Mets. Philly, ATL, Washington, all set up pretty well for the future too. If the Mets miss out on getting full value for Syndergaard, albeit with health issues history, they'll regret it.
Full value is probably, Top 10 prospect, 2 top 100 prospects, upside flyer.

5. Uh, Hahn has done a pretty good job with Sale, Anderson, Quintana, Kahnle, Nate Jones, Rodon among some others. Saying he hasn't developed anyone is not true.

6. Lastly, This was merely a suggestion of the kind of player I see the WSox going after in a year when they have multiple long jams of prospects and an owner motivated to spend in a potentially legendary free agent market. This combined with how I see the next year or 2 going in Queens.

8.) 19 Oct 2017 15:26:51
Let's consider some facts here.

1. Syndergaard will only cost a team ~$5-10 in arbitration next year. The three starters even remotely comparable in FA will be Kershaw, Keuchel and Price. All of them will earn significantly more than that. The Mets know this. They know that losing Syndergaard means they have to either blow it up, or spend 4x more for a comparable pitcher.

They also know that similar circumstances are also true for other teams: it's trade for a cheap #1 starter, or break the bank for one. They will most certainly capitalize on that and take a team for all they have. I bet you at least two, maybe three of the starters on that your list would go, as well as two top 50 prospects. Syndergaard will be 26 next off-season, with just over 3 seasons of service time. That will come at a massive, massive premium.

2. The reason Hand and Straily are still on their team is because, believe it or not, teams DON'T have to trade their players. They can, and in many cases, do hold out for what they want. No one gave the Marlins that package for Straily, not because he wasn't good, but because it wouldn't be worth it to undermine all the work they've done in building a farm system to acquire them. Heck, look at what it took to get Straily from Cincinnati to Miami. Luis Castillo was brilliant and looks like he could be a #1 pitcher. That was for Dan Straily. The Padres are in the same boat with Brad Hand. They are waiting, because they know what teams will give for top relievers.

3. Speaking of relievers, look at what relievers are getting nowadays, and tell me that your package for Syndergaard is good. Gleyber Torres (who is now #1 overall) and Clint Frazier were both ranked higher than Robert. (By the way, Brad Hand had just as good a year as both Chapman and Miller had in 2016). The Red Sox gave up Margot/ Guerra (#25 and #76 at the time) plus Carlos Asuaje, who was a popular, under-the-radar prospect.

These are for relievers. You're suggesting the White Sox give up a similar package for Noah Syndergaard as the Red Sox gave for Kimbrel, with just one added top 100 prospect? You think they can give him up without adding in Jimenez or Kopech? This is delusion at it's highest level.

4. Stop comparing this to the Sale trade. Sale was older, and had 4 more years of service time at the time of the trade. He also was traded for the #1 prospect in all of baseball, the current #9 prospect, plus some very, very, very good spare parts.

Syndergaard is younger and has 1000 less innings pitched than Sale. A THOUSAND! You think about how much teams value low inning pitchers: Jeff Samardzija got $90MM because he was an innings eater with few innings under his belt at 31.

If we see the old Syndergaard again in 2018, I'm telling you, there's not a snowball's chance in hell the Mets trade him for anything less than Moncada, Jimenez, and Kopech. And rightly so. The trade you suggested, if the Mets put Syndergaard on the block, would be topped by 4-5 other teams, easily.

9.) 19 Oct 2017 17:14:57
"Moncada Jimenez and Kopech", all 3, and I'm delusional? Learn a little about prospect valuation and read up on Luis Robert. He has as much upside as any propect on any team. These guys that have torn up the Cuban league have done fairly well in past years coming over.

Syndergaard made like 5 starts this year. Sale is simply better, 1000 innings more or not, Sale didn't miss the whole year with "bicep soreness". Also "looking at the facts", look at Sale's salary and tell me if that made him more vaulauble.

Don't compare my packeage to the package for relievers. Those trades, Chapman or Miller for example, were trades to World Series contending teams desperate for bullpen help and breaking 80+ year droughts. Also don't act like those top relievers aren't ultra-valuable. They rightfully get those top prospects because of what they mean in a 7 game series.

If Syndergaard has a Cy Young Season and like a sub-2.00 ERA this year, then yes ok, maybe the Mets get crazy and ask for someone like Moncada, Jimenez or Kopech. And again, a year from now, Robert could wind up in the top 10. Kopech Moncada and Jimenez will all be on the majors in August. They won't even be "prospects" next offseason. Even with them off the prospect lists, they probably still have at least 2 top 25 prospects with Robert, a top 4 2018 pick, and maybe even guys like Hansen or Rutherford who no one would be suprised if they made a jump up. If Syndergaard is available and healthy, no one has the farm to outbid the Sox. Frankly, there are like 4 or 5 systems that even have the capability to trade for a guy like Syndergaard.

The Mets would be dumb to waste Syndergaard's prime years while they sit in the cellar and watch the Yankees win. No one can give them more then the White Sox.

10.) 19 Oct 2017 23:48:51
This really was special. So much to break down.

"Moncada Jimenez and Kopech", all 3, and I'm delusional? Learn a little about prospect valuation and read up on Luis Robert. He has as much upside as any propect on any team. These guys that have torn up the Cuban league have done fairly well in past years coming over. "

Yes, you're still delusional. You literally think Syndergaard could be had for a package sans MLB-ready guys? You have to be out of your mind. He's been a 10 WAR player in just over 2 seasons, and doesn't turn 26 until August. He has 364 innings under his belt. He's also crazy cheap and controlled for 3 more years after this one. If there's anyone who doesn't understand value, it's you. You don't understand how insanely valuable that contract is.

If it makes you feel better, let's say Moncada, Kopech, and Robert. Better for you? Anything short of that is a pure joke.

"Don't compare my packeage to the package for relievers. Those trades, Chapman or Miller for example, were trades to World Series contending teams desperate for bullpen help and breaking 80+ year droughts. "

Kimbrel was traded in the offseason. It's why I also threw his trade in the mix. The Kimbrel trade is only slightly less than what you're suggesting the Mets would get for Syndergaard. Heck, this is a worse trade than the Cubs gave for Quintana, who's a worse pitcher.

"And again, a year from now, Robert could wind up in the top 10. Kopech Moncada and Jimenez will all be on the majors in August. They won't even be "prospects" next offseason. Even with them off the prospect lists, they probably still have at least 2 top 25 prospects with Robert, a top 4 2018 pick, and maybe even guys like Hansen or Rutherford who no one would be suprised if they made a jump up. "

One, you're projecting. This is a pure biased projection with no base other than you're a White Sox fan. So stop.

Two, I don't care if Kopech is a prospect or not. He or Moncada or Jimenez (at least one, probably 2) will be included into the trade. Even more so, really, if they reach the majors in 2018.

"If Syndergaard is available and healthy, no one has the farm to outbid the Sox. Frankly, there are like 4 or 5 systems that even have the capability to trade for a guy like Syndergaard. "

Yankees, Dodgers, Braves, Brewers, Padres, Cubs, Phillies, even the Nationals have the young players to build a trade around. All of them would put a stronger package than what you've suggested.

Seriously, it'll take a massive—MASSIVE—overpay to land Syndergaard. In a year which your only better options would be significantly older and 30-40MM more expensive a year, it would be a feeding frenzy. That package would be quickly outbid by multiple teams.

11.) 19 Oct 2017 23:50:43
One last one:

"No one can give them more then the White Sox. "

You may be right. And yet you found a laughably pathetic group to move for an undeniably amazing pitcher.

Please, quit telling anyone we don't understand how this works. Yours is nothing but misguided homerism.

12.) 20 Oct 2017 01:58:05
Either way, I'm done. Have fun with your delusions of grandeur. If nothing else, you gave everyone a real great laugh.

13.) 20 Oct 2017 06:18:46
Now bear with me statbook, I'm going to make a slight projection right here. Try to stay with me because I know this isn't exactly allowed.

Robert, Cease, Burger, Spencer Adams, and Basabe gets it done next offseason.

A top 10, top 75, top 100, A guy pushing for top 100 plus a flyer for Noah Syndergaard who makes 22 starts, 3.00 ERA for a 72-90 Mets squad that finishes 5th in the East, watching the Phillies and Braves make huge strides with young talent - sharing a city with a team with millions to spend, a great young core and strong remaining farm.

A key thing for you to work on and to remember in these negotiations, is it's more than just WAR and other stats. You have to look at everything happening within an organization. The rebuild, especially in big markets, is the new way to go.

Mets currently = Bad team, bad farm, no coach, a couple talented assets.

Lastly, If you could give me some potential offers for Syndergaard that not only teams could do, but would be willing to do that would "quickly outbid" my offers, I'd love to read them.

14.) 20 Oct 2017 07:01:22
Man, you sound like a Mets fan. Or not, really wondering if you support an MLB franchise.

What theStatbook has taught us:

1. Reasonable projection on this site is strictly prohibited.
2. When valuing a pitcher, who cares about past injuries!?!?
3. The Mets have "an exceptional farm system"
4. Better pitcher with no injury history on great contract is not as valuable as worse pitcher, injury history, also great contract.
5. Sale= #1, top 40 prospect, 2 flyers. Syndergaard= 3 tops 10s OVERALL "as a start"
6. The Cubs and Nationals suddenly have prospects to trade for Noah Syndergaard.
7. Who cares about where your team is at with an awful farm? If you have a valuable asset, just hold him through his prime while you sit in last and the rest of the division thrives.
8. Relievers don't warrant trade value in this sport.
9. When you have no more faulty claims to spill, just use "homerism" as your go-to.

15.) 20 Oct 2017 15:20:22
As far as deals that would outbid yours, here's a few:

Dodgers: Buehler, Verdugo, and Alvarez.

Nationals: Robles, Taylor, Fedde, and Kieboom.

Yankees: Torres, Adams, Florial

Braves: Acuna, Wright, Gohara

Indians: Mejia, McKenzie, Bradley

Rockies: Rodgers, Pint, McMahon

Brewers: Villar, Woodruff, Ortiz, Ray

Phillies: Moniak, Sanchez, Kingery

Cardinals: Reyes, Kelly, Flaherty

Reds: Senzel, Greene, Mahle

I could keep going. Point is, every one of those has someone either higher on the current prospect chart, or a young MLB talent (or both) . All of those offers would be considered long before yours.

If the White Sox included even ONE of Moncada/ Kopech/ Jimenez, then it gets tougher. If they offer two, I'm not entirely sure anyone can beat it.

16.) 20 Oct 2017 23:07:45
So first of all, The Brewers deal is bad, so is the Nats deal for the Mets. The Mets would like all the rest. Problem is, Yankees aren't trading Torres, especially with Florial and Adams. Reds trading Senzel AND Greene?, HA! Rockies aren't trading Rodgers Pint and McMahon for Syndergaard to pitch at Coors. Braves are not trading Acuña and the Mets don't trade him within the division-- same for Phillies and Mets don't let Moniak be the center piece for him, he's been very underwhelming so far. Cards trade is Pretty good, Indians and Dodgers trades are ok.

With all those trades, say teams get in a bidding war. Which team do you think has the guys to add to a deal to ultimately finish it off? Who has more than the Sox can offer?

17.) 21 Oct 2017 00:09:56
So, you think that if the Mets came knocking and offered up Syndergaard, they wouldn't ask for at least one (most likely two) of Moncada, Kopech, Jimenez, or Robert (threw that one in, just for you)? You honestly think that?

Your proposal is literally no different than any one we've seen the delusional Yankees fans propose on this site: a bunch of our middle prospects for elite players. It's only slightly better because you've included Luis Robert.

What you have to remember is that not all players on a line. Syndergaard's contract HAS to be considered. His age HAS to be considered. The fact he's thrown only 364 innings HAS to be considered.

Don't think teams value cheap, controllable players? Teams are asking the moon for guys like that. Because in 2018, getting Syndergaard, at a 5-7MM salary frees up space to also get Machado (as you've also proposed the Sox doing, which I'm fine with) . It means they don't have to spend $200+MM to get that value. If Sale and Syndergaard both went on the market today, they'd command well over $200MM each. You can have Syndergaard for around $30MM over the next 4 seasons. That's nuts. The Mets know this and will capitalize on it.
Don't think teams value age? Jason Heyward got $184MM because he entered FA at 26.
Don't think they value innings? Jeff Samardzija got $90M because he had less than 1000 IP going into his age 31 season. The Giants knew that his ERA wouldn't be great, but they could run him out there for 7 innings a night.

Syndergaard is a combination of all three things teams value.

And I don't agree with your point about the Mets' situation. And quite frankly, as a White Sox fan, you should realize how incredibly stupid your comment sounds. Because the White Sox held on to Sale when they were terrible with no farm system. They were facing cross town rivals who were getting very good, and a division where the Twins and Indians look to be better than them for some time.

And even during all that, they held on to Eaton. They held on to Quintana, and Robertson, and Frazier. If there's a team that showed us how to hold out for the best offer they can get for a player, it was the White Sox. Now, they have fans saying how dumb it is to hold on to players in a similar context? Give me a break.

18.) 21 Oct 2017 00:10:30
To answer to your points:

1. I'm asking you to stop for two reasons: 1) you have nothing to suggest he'll be ranked that high other than "I LIKE ROBERT. ROBERT GOOD. " And 2) it's ridiculous to suggest teams care about where Keith Law ranks minor leaguers. That Robert is a top 10 prospect or not is irrelevant when I think the Mets will want even better players yet, prospects or not.

2. It's 2017. Pitchers get Tommy John surgery and deal with injuries all the time. Alex Reyes just had TJ Surgery and scouts almost unanimously see him as one of the best young arms in the game. If Syndergaard were 30+, his injury history may have more bearing. That he's 25 would give any team hope.

3. So I was wrong. Sue me. If we can't make comments because we were wrong once, shut this forum down.

4. No, I'm also looking at Syndergaard's contract. Over the next FOUR seasons, he'll make around $30MM. You can trade for Syndergaard AND sign Bryce Harper in the same offseason, have both for three years, and not break the bank. That a team can have that for that long is insanely valuable. By the time of your proposed trade, Syndergaard will be younger, still cheaper (barring an extension), and have half the innings pitched that Sale had when traded. Teams value all three of those factors, sometimes more than stat output itself.

5. Ask yourself, which is more unreasonable: the White Sox don't give up a single one of their top 3 organizational players for a top 10-15 pitcher (at an insane contract value), OR, they give up all three of them for it? You're suggesting the Mets will move their most valuable commodity for a really cheap package. It won't. Obviously, my suggestion won't either. So even at the risk of exaggerating, my point was: you didn't include a single one of Moncada/ Kopech/ Jimenez for a pitcher like Syndergaard. That's a joke.

6. If your proposal is the best the White Sox will do, the Cubs could offer from their MLB roster, and the Nationals have some really good prospects (the #2 prospect overall, one in MLB's top 40, 3 in top 100, and some strong young MLB-ready guys) . Again, this all assumes teams care about prospect rankings. But the Nationals have some really good players they could give to acquire Syndergaard, as do the Cubs.

7. The White Sox were terrible, had no farm system, and were watching other teams zoom by them (including their rich, in-town rival) . Yet, they waited to move Chris Sale, Jose Quintana, Adam Eaton, Todd Frazier, David Robertson until they received deals they were looking for. YOUR OWN TEAM was a prime example of waiting. The Mets have four years until Syndergaard becomes a free agent. That's in 2022, when he's 30. They can also build around him yet. It's not like that team doesn't have other good players. But they can wait, just as the White Sox waited.

8. I don't know what you read to assume that's what I meant. I've shown they absolutely garner trade value. So if teams will give up massive packages for Craig Kimbrel, how much more should they give for Syndergaard? Your proposal is only slightly more than the Red Sox gave to the Padres for a closer.

9. I call you a homer because you can't be level-headed. Look at your trade suggestions from the past. You said this summer the Nationals would give up Victor Robles for two relievers. Your trade ideas for Quintana.

I find it funny that you think the Nationals would give up Robles for a guy like Robertson, but the White Sox can't give up a top prospect for Syndergaard. Or comparing what you thought was fair for Quintana vs. Syndergaard.

19.) 21 Oct 2017 07:10:05
1.) No, not just keith law. It's like everyone that posts propsect rankings. Not even trying to be saracastic, read up on the guy. MLB. com had an article on why he could be the next #1 prospect by next year, along with others. Everyone seems to like him, scouts, analytical guys. The dude is an absolute stud - 5tools.

2.) Good point, but I don't think you can act like that won't hurt his value at all.

3.) It's ok to be wrong, just felt the need to point it out.

4.) Ok, Syndergaard had an arm injury. That's why he only has like 300 innings. Also, Sale is a top 2 or 3 pitcher. Syndergaard is, like you said, 10-15. Don't act like Sale was also not on an insanely valuable contract as well. Teams care about projected output in the duration they will hold the player. Does age matter? Yes, but what they've been able to do in the past is a better testamant to their trade value than their age. Look at what Verlander is doing. Every pitcher is different.

5.) You have to realize that the Sox have one of the best farm systems we've ever seen. Just because Robert isn't a top 3 prospect in their system dosn't mean he can't headline a major deal. Will the Mets ask for Kopech or Jimenez? Certainly, and it will be a quick no from Hahn. Then they'll get a no for Acuña from the Braves, and Torres from the Yankees, Senzel from the Reds. I bet Hahn called Dombrowski and said he wanted Devers too in the Sale trade.

6.) So who headlines the trade for the Cubs? Schwarber? Russell? Baez? No chance. The Nats have Robles but again, he's not going to be traded within the division.

7.) Remember, The White Sox were 24-8 in May of 2016, far from terrible. They choked and then the rebuild started a year ago. Before then, they were contening trying to win a world series. The Cubs won it and then the process started. Sale initiated it, then the longest they waited within the rebuild period was a half a season to trade a valuable guy. In less than 1 year, they traded like 12 guys that held trade value. They didn't really wait more than 8 months to trade anyone. Every year the Mets hold Syndergaard, his value drops bc its one less year the aquiring team could have him. He could also have a more serious arm injury in that time. I expect him to have a nice seaon in 2018 so after that, 3 years of a cheap contract will net them the max return. The team is certainly not going to come close to contending in 2018 even though they have a few nice players.

8.) My point is that don't say my package for a starter is bad bc you can compare the return to that of a previous deal for a relief pitcher. It all depends on the status of a team and what they need the most.

9.) The Sox got Rutherford (a top 40) for Kahnle and Robertson, and look what they are doing for the Yankees as we speak. If the Nats traded for Robertson and Kahnle, they beat the Cubs in the NLDS. Now if they don't win a series next year in the postseason, they are practically screwed bc Harper will leave. Again this is my point from #8, you say "relievers" like they can't be traded for top prospects. Bullpens win championships. I do have bias, as does everyone. It's one of the reasons we post on this site to see what people think. In some respects, Quintana got more than I expected.

20.) 21 Oct 2017 16:23:49
You think the Nationals would give up the #2 prospect, who was fast-tracked to the MLB roster because of how good he was for Robertson/ Kahnle, but the White Sox can't give up a top 5 prospect for Syndergaard?

You are a homer. Seriously, just stop. Every time you post about the White Sox, you make yourself look worse, and continue to prove my point.

21.) 21 Oct 2017 23:36:07
Let's work on our facts. Robles was brought up more to pinch run in the postseason. In my trade scenarios, the Mets get a top 10 prospect overall, and 2-3 more top 100s. We've established that a package like that can only be matched by 1, maybe 2 other teams.

Again, you have to look at the situation/ recent history of a team. The Nationals were absolutely loaded this year, except in the bullpen they were just ok after they got Madson and Doolittle. If they were 100% all in on winning this year and are 100% all in on giving Harper a blank check and retaining him in 2019, then you trade for the 2 best relievers on the market in Kahnle and Robertson. You want to win but also show Harper you're doing everything you can as the front office to do so. Yeah, Robles probably has to go back to Chicago because their system is pretty bare, but you're getting the best 2 guys available for multiple seasons. Plus I personally and many others believe Soto will end up being the better player for them anyway.

22.) 22 Oct 2017 05:18:30
I’m stopping this here and now: if you think Robertson is worth Victor Robles, a unanimous top 5 prospect in baseball, but don’t think Noah Syndergaard is worth a unanimous top 5 guy, you literally are delusional.

This whole thing has been a big joke, and you’ve proven four or five times over you can’t be rational when you think about the White Sox.

Good luck dude.

23.) 22 Oct 2017 05:49:42
Not what I said at all, but hey - you haven't really been reading what I've said this whole thread.

It's not just Robertson, it's Robertson and Kahnle. Pretty big difference there. Syndergaard gets a top 5-10 prospect, his name is Luis Robert, who you have shown to know absolutely nothing about. Multiple writers have written as to why he can become the next #1 prospect in baseball. He's a stud. I know, credible writers know, and all the MLB franchises that offered him $20MM in bonuses in July know that. He's going to make one of the biggest jumps of anyone. I'm sorry, it's not just me saying it. There are BA guys asking if he could crack the MLB lineup in 2018.

Your knowledge of prospects lacks to a pretty large extent as well as the type of trades teams make in certain situations, things we've learned through baseball history. It's probably one of the reasons why you have posted once since 2014. You comment on the proposals of others while either not knowing enough to create your own, or too afraid to be critiqued. It's ok, we all have things to learn about the game - some more than others. This hasn't been a joke, you just don't like another knowledgeable person debating you. I applaud your ability to utilize advanced metrics, but when someone has a different take then you, they aren't automatically a homer or dellusional.

You've convinced me that my original proposal was off, but that doesn't mean Robert can't headline it. If Syndergaard has as low of an FIP as he did in 2016, then yes, trading him becomes extremely unlikely. This proposal was the "home run" type of trading for an ace, which I see the Sox looking into before 2019 or 2020.

But good luck to you as well and to what ever team you support but refuse to disclose.

24.) 22 Oct 2017 06:48:09
Buddy, take the White Sox glasses off. For five minutes. The reason I keep calling you a homer is that you think your team is in this perfect position- everyone has unbelievable value, every prospect is the absolute best ever, and you will get an overpay for everyone.

Robertson and Kahnle, packaged with Todd Frazier didn’t even draw a guy like Victor Robles. (And please, spare us the “Rutherford is better than Robles” argument) . You weren’t just off, you were laughably off. And even when you were off, you continue to double down.

It was a horrendously bad prediction that showed you think too highly of anyone in a White Sox uniform. Look no further than your post about Garcia. I gave you multiple, multiple arguments, backed with advanced numbers and stats to show you your projection is too high. Yet you can’t buy it? You continue to think that he can hit 30 HR based on nothing other than it was a thought in your brain.

It doesn’t take much thought to see what team I support. But the reason I don’t post much: I don’t care. I don’t spend time thinking of magical trades. I want to analyze team needs, player value, and future performance. I want yo leave my bias at the door and talk from a fresh slate. That’s why I don’t disclose it. It makes me less objective.

Maybe you could do the same.

25.) 22 Oct 2017 07:02:03
One last thing, don’t throw jabs like “we all have things to learn about this game” when you don’t even seem to understand how BABIP or regression works.

You’re claiming I don’t know trade value, which is really: “I disagree with your ranking of a prospect”. Cool, you can win a subjective argument. One where both parties can walk away thinking they won.

We disagree on a subjective topic. I apologize if you took offense to being called “delusional. ” I don’t apologize for calling you a homer.

26.) 24 Oct 2017 01:27:44
I'm pretty sure you made a new account so someone would agree with you publically. "ilikebaseball"? That is hilarious.

27.) 24 Oct 2017 11:09:45
It's funny you point that out, that I overvalue guys on my favorite team. I do. Everyone does. It's how the human brain works. This is true for prospects, but a psychologist that I read applied it to your fantasy football team when making trades. You like the ability/ potential of guys simply because they are on your team. This puts it as an objective, scientific study.

Yes, I'm super excited for the future of the White Sox. They have one of the best farm systems we have ever seen in this league. You guys can take my preference into account when looking at my trades. It's the point of the site. I want to hear from people with mutual interests that have a different pov. But really, aren't they theoretically in one hell of a great position for the future? You never know how it will ultimately turn out, but I don't know how the front office could have done much better. I would say the Braves, Dodgers, and Yankees are the only teams that have the same long-term potential as the Sox. And really from what Rick Hahn has been able to do in these trades, sometimes getting an overpay isn't that crazy.

We can agree to disagree on the Nats and Kahnle/ Robertson situation. I personally think they should've gone ALL in this year. If you believe that Harper is leaving regardless, then yes, hold on to Robles.

"“we all have things to learn about this game” when you don’t even seem to understand how BABIP or regression works. "

This isn't a jab. I wasn't being sarcastic. I know how BABIP works but regression for the statistic isn't always a linear model.

In all seriousness though, I haven't read much into all of your comments. Who do you support? It isn't obvious to me.

28.) 25 Oct 2017 03:06:51
So you spent all this time getting upset because someone called you a homer, then you backed up the fact that you ARE a homer, and it's okay, because a psychologist told you so.

You are impossible to argue with, and it's not because you're always right or even always wrong. It's because you shift the goal posts the moment you find out you're wrong.

"I'm not a homer. Quit calling me a homer. You call me a homer because you have no argument. Okay, fine I'm a homer, but so are you! "

And then you accuse me of creating a fake profile to garner "agreement". No. As I stated, that's my friend. I told him of these epic, long-winded arguments, and he came in to troll. You can choose to believe whatever you want (you already do anyway) .

If you've read my posts, and still can't throw up an educated guess as to who I root for, I think you're beyond figuring it out, and I'll just keep it a secret. If you genuinely can't figure it out, I find that hilarious.

As for BABIP, regression from the level Garcia hit at in 2017 is reliably backed up by decades worth of data. No one hits at that level for any sustained period of time, it's almost an objective fact at this point. And statistically, we can peg his regression to be somewhere in between .330 and .350. I've relentlessly been generous and talked as though Garcia falls at .350, but I think a realistic projection is .340. His xBABIP was .335 this year. Is it too absurd to say that his 2017 xBABIP is a good spot for him to regress to?

To understand BABIP, you have to understand regression. You either 1) don't seem to understand how it works, or 2) refuse to accept reality when it comes to a White Sox player's regression. Neither is a good trait.

29.) 25 Oct 2017 03:22:37
One final comment:

"a psychologist that I read. This puts it as an objective, scientific study. "

As a science/ math guy, I can't tell you how patently illogical and inane something like this sounds, and stands as an insult to science. Please, for everyone's sake, stop making comments of any caliber. You keep making a fool of yourself.

30.) 25 Oct 2017 05:02:39
It doesn't take a math guy to show that regression for BABIP or like 90% of baseball stats is not a linear model. Maybe you're a math guy that stopped around the 6th grade, but if you have ever taken a stats or more specifically a sports analytics class, you'd learn about regression and what variables determine the linearity of a particular statistic. BABIP can't be linear because of the thousands of factors that play into it. I feel like a KEY BABIP factor you ignore is Exit Velo and what it does to the stat.

So your buddy trolls baseball trade rumor forums in his free time? Seems like a REALLY interesting guy!

Just trying to show you that everyone has a little homer in them. Never did I deny my "homerism", it was just a weak, low argument that doesn't carry a lot of weight. You aren't going to convince me (or anyone) of flaws in trades by calling me a homer, bc everyone is a least a little bit biased bc, you know, Science.
I'm not going to write you a book report for you on that article, I was just trying to put one of your commonly used jabs it into some perspective for you. Hopefully the logic behind it at least makes some sense, after all, you are a "Science guy. "

I've enjoyed this debate, it was one of the better ones I've had recently. Since this is like your 3rd or 4th "last comment", not quite sure if it really is.

It's pretty evident Chi Sox takes the W here, folks.

31.) 25 Oct 2017 05:10:27
Haha, gifting yourself the W. Brilliant. Absolutely freaking brilliant.

Good luck on those predictions. Don't come crying when Garcia's value tanks next July.

32.) 25 Oct 2017 05:26:37
They say life is about its small victories. ;)

33.) 25 Oct 2017 05:46:47
Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.




Chi Sox's rumour replies


Click To View This Thread

16 Mar 2021 18:46:42
Not sure how Vogelbach makes sense for CHW. Collins, Mercedes and Vaughn (even if they manipulate service time for 2 weeks) would be redundant. Not to mention Eloy Jimenez's outlook.

Gallo making sense for Arizona?

Seems like a lot for Wendle (who I actually really like as a player), but I may be higher on Tarnok and Vodnik than you and/ or most.

Signings look good.

Chi Sox



Click To View This Thread

12 Jan 2021 03:46:56
I don't think Boston makes that trade within their division, and I don't think you need to give Rosario a 2-year deal. He's nothing more than a DH.

I could see Kris Bryant making sense for the Jays, however.

But I could also see them getting in on Bauer.

Chi Sox



Click To View This Thread

02 Dec 2020 08:03:41
"He's a top 20 prospect everywhere because no one has enough data from 2020 to move anyone lol. "

Or because in March he was sitting 101 along with the other stuff i described? Until he isn't doing that, he's a top prospect. No matter what his off-the-field issues are.

But really, you're seriously going to bag on the kid because he's battling depression? He's made for TLR? What does even mean? Shame on you. It's a low blow, even for someone with the less than desirable moral character you've showed on this forum. It's 2020 -- teams literally employ sport psychologists for things like this.

The amount of pro athletes that have likely battled the same demons is probably vast, but not a lot were brave enough to be vocal about it. He was also going through a divorce right before summer camp started. He's really not a problem - he's a genuinely good kid and an elite talent. One that the Red Sox struggled to part with, the White Sox are still thrilled to have, and the Rays would love to put their magic finishing touches on through his development.

Flip flopping and now saying that Vaughn and Kopech are not good players is such a trolling comment that there's not a whole lot left to say. If they aren't good prospects, then I'm afraid I have some bad news for the entire Giants farm system.

I think Neander would drool over this offer and take it quickly. The more I think about it, however, I just don't think it would be on the table -- as much as I think it should be. This magnitude of a return is likely what it's going to take to get Snell because he doesn't have to be traded at all and likely why he won't be.

Chi Sox



Click To View This Thread

02 Dec 2020 02:07:55
It's Ethan Katz.

If that isn't symbolic of this whole ordeal, I don't know what is.

Chi Sox



Click To View This Thread

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.

Chi Sox




Chi Sox's talk replies