MLB rumours 4

 

Use our rumors form to send us mlb trade rumors.

(single word yields best result)

15 Nov 2021 14:21:20
Giants Offseason

(Update since Posey retired)

Non-tender Alex Dickerson & Tyler Beede.

Re-sign 1B Brandon Belt (accepts QO)- 1/18.4M
Re-sign RHP Kevin Gausman 4/84M


Sign RHP Dylan Bundy 1/6.5M
Sign RHP Justin Verlander 2/32M
Sign OF Seiya Suzuki 5/75M
Sign RHP Hector Neris 2/15M


Trade LHP Nick Swiney & 1B Garrett Frechette to Tampa Bay for LHP Ryan Yarbrough

C- Casali
1B- Belt
2B- Flores/La Stella
SS- Crawford
3B- Longoria
LF- Wade/Suzki
CF- Slater/Duggar
RF- Yastrzemski

Bench
C- Bart
1B/OF- Ruf
2B/3B- Flores/La Stella
OF- Wade/Suzuki
OF- Duggar/Slater

Rotation
1. Webb (R)
2. Gausman (R)
3. Verlander (R)
4. Bundy (R)
5. Yarbrough (L)

Bullpen
CP- Doval (R)
CP- McGee (L)
SU- Rogers (R)
RP- Neris (R)
RP- Leone (R)
RP- J. Garcia (L)
RP- Littell (R)
RP- Alvarez (L)

Estimated 2022 Payroll- $168 Million

Agree5 Disagree1

15 Nov 2021 17:50:36
Still think Gausman at 4/ 84 represents a substantial hometown discount. He's the best pitcher on the market over 4+ seasons, by a decent margin.

15 Nov 2021 21:15:44
Possibly. And I'd agree it's a hometown discount. He's made it very clear he wants to play in San Francisco, on several occasions.

16 Nov 2021 04:36:36
I think LAA comes after Gausman hard. Arte probably signs off on 5/ 110-120 easy. Trip to OC might not be too bad for $30 million extra.

16 Nov 2021 13:38:45
It's entirely possible Gausman moves on, especially if he gets an offer that he simply can't refuse.

But every indication, again, is that there's mutual interest in bringing him back. I just don't know if Zaidi is ready to drop 100M+ on Gausman. I'd rather him give it to Stroman.

16 Nov 2021 14:14:56
Agree to disagree there I guess. No chance in heck I'd take Stroman over Gausman.

Reports are that LAA is going over the QO to sign Synderaard. Major desperation mode - I think one of Gausman, Stroman or Ray is going there as well.

16 Nov 2021 14:51:39
I think my greater fear is that the Giants would be paying to get second half Kevin Gausman, which is why I don't want them going more than 4 years on him.

17 Nov 2021 13:32:33
This offseason should be interesting. To date, the biggest free agent contract they've handed out under Zaidi was to Tommy La Stella. It's clear they'll blow straight through that this winter, but I remain unconvinced that they are going to start giving out 100M contracts just yet.

18 Nov 2021 14:36:42
The Steamer projections for Stroman versus Gausman show why we shouldn't trust Steamer.

Gausman 2022: 191 IP, 10.02 K/ 9, 2.54 BB/ 9, 3.78 ERA, 3.69 FIP.
Stroman 2022: 182 IP, 7.39 K/ 9, 2.64 BB/ 9, 4.12 ERA, 4.08 FIP.

The problem I see is that Stroman's numbers, most importantly his ERA and FIP are elevated by 50 to 100 points, respectively from his 2021 numbers, and the last time Stroman was that bad over a full season was 2016. He was hurt in 2018. They don't reflect his career numbers very well.

Gausman's projections are elevated from 2021 as well, but they fall more in line with his career numbers.

Stroman's projections are obviously hurt by a gap in the algorithm, not having any numbers to input in 2020 due to his opt out, but it's odd to me that a guy who had 3.22 and 3.02 ERA seasons over his last two (and wasn't dealing with injuries) would somehow be projected as a 4.12 ERA guy the next season.

I think both are excellent pitchers. But I'd lean toward Stroman, mostly because he has a lengthier track record of success.

18 Nov 2021 17:20:03
Stroman's GB% is dropping and his 2021 BABIP was a career-low. For a pitcher that's so quality of contact-driven, that's a cause for concern. If he goes to a less defensively-efficient team (i. e. one that doesn't have Lindor and Baez up the middle), we could see the effect. I think he's a high-3s, low-4s ERA guy into his early 30s.

Remember that Steamer is merely a formula. It's not making any subjective determinations.

22 Nov 2021 13:34:41
Except when Darin Ruf is a -0.7 WAR player next year. Then you're more than willing to accept it as a determination.

22 Nov 2021 14:30:59
It would be better for your argument on Ruf if Steamer WAS making subjective determinations. Math tells us that you're severely overrating his future outlook.

29 Nov 2021 03:17:27
Yeah, 4/ 84 for Gausman was unsurprisingly never close, lol.

01 Dec 2021 20:03:36
Did Gausman go to the White Sox for 5/ 120?

Asking for a friend.

02 Dec 2021 03:21:10
Nope, but 5/ 120 was a lot closer than 4/ 84.

02 Dec 2021 14:38:32
4/ 84 is 21M AAV.

5/ 120 is 24M AAV.

He signed for 22M AAV.

Therefore, I was closer. Next argument.

11 Nov 2021 21:06:37
White Sox Offseason 2021-2022

1.Sign Kevin Gausman (5 years, $120 million)

2. Sign Stephen Vogt (1 years, $1.5 million)

3. Sign Blake Parker (1 year, $1.5 million)

4. Trade #1:

White Sox Get:
OF Kevin Kiermaier
INF Joey Wendle
RHP Phoenix Sanders

Rays Get:
RHP Craig Kimbrel
2B/3B Bryan Ramos
OF Misael Gonzalez

5. Trade #2:

White Sox Get:
2B/OF Ketel Marte

Diamondbacks Get:
1B/OF Andrew Vaughn
RHP Jared Kelley
OF Micker Adolfo
RHP Theo Denlinger

6. Trade #3:

White Sox Get:
OF Jackie Bradley Jr.
$4 million cash

Brewers Get:
LHP Dallas Keuchel

7. Trade #4

White Sox Get:
RHP Tyler Kinley

Rockies Get:
DH Yermin Mercedes
LHP Gil Luna

Lineup:
Tim Anderson SS
Yoan Moncada 3B
Luis Robert RF
Ketel Marte 2B
Jose Abreu 1B
Yasmani Grandal C
Eloy Jimenez DH
Kevin Kiermaier CF
Jackie Bradley Jr. / Adam Engel (platoon) LF

Bench:
Joey Wendle INF
Adam Engel / Jackie Bradley OF
Stephen Vogt C
Romy Gonzalez UTL

Rotation:
Lucas Giolito
Lance Lynn
Kevin Gausman
Dylan Cease
Michael Kopech

Bullpen:
Liam Hendriks
Aaron Bummer
Garrett Crochet
Blake Parker
Reynaldo Lopez
Jose Ruiz
Tyler Kinley
Phoenix Sanders / Ryan Burr

Payroll = ~$179 million

Thoughts?

Agree8 Disagree2

14 Nov 2021 19:21:55
Gausman has stated that he grew up a Giants fan and wants to play for them, I think it's best to project he'll play there until the Giants move on.

But also, 5/ 120 seems like an overpay for him.

14 Nov 2021 19:24:42
Also, that's Milwaukee paying $6.5M for Kimbrel, after the salaries clear. If the Brewers are honestly considering if they are willing to pay Josh Hader $10M, then there's very little chance they'll take on $6.5M for Kimbrel.

15 Nov 2021 13:01:17
Kimbrel goes to Tampa, not Milwaukee. Milwaukee makes Hader available every off season just in case someone wants to offer a massive overpay.

Also I really don't think $24 million over 5 years will end up being an overpay for Gausman. He should get the biggest deal for any FA SP on a 5 or 6 year deal.

15 Nov 2021 13:13:20
You're right, I misread the trade. I think it's even less likely the Brewers would want Keuchel. Bradley was a bad signing, but there's a better chance he'll be worth his salary than Keuchel would.

And I watched enough of Gausman to say that if the guy is going to get $20-25M, I want it on a 4-year deal. He has a higher chance of being a bust than most of the top-flight SP options on the market, in my opinion.

This isn't to say he's not good, just that I would proceed with caution. His 2nd Half was pretty rough, once teams figured out that splitter.

15 Nov 2021 13:47:12
You really think it's more likely that Bradley is worth $17.5 million than Keuchel is worth $18 million (or even $22 million with the added cash)? . I don't. I think there are more signs pointing to a Kuechel bounce back than Bradley, even if I'm not too confident in ether.

Milwaukee could use some SP depth too, more than they need to see if Bradley can bounce back.

15 Nov 2021 16:28:43
Milwaukee has a really solid rotation as it stands. They could use depth, but I'm not sure dropping 18M on pitching depth is ideal for them.

15 Nov 2021 17:40:15
Logic here is that Milwaukee would essentially pay Keuchel $22 million for 2022 who's projected 1.2 WAR by Steamer ($18.3 million per win)

They get rid of paying JBJ $17.5 million for 2022 who's projected 0.1 WAR by Steamer. ($175 million per win) .

They're buying a win above replacement for roughly $4.5 million, which is a little less than market value.

15 Nov 2021 21:19:07
I guess my point is: who is more likely to overcome a really bad season: JBJ or Keuchel? JBJ has elements to his game that are more likely, in my opinion, to overcome his projection. I don't think Keuchel reaches 1 WAR next season.

If the Brewers are that hamstrung by JBJ's salary, they could find more creative ways of clearing that salary. But they could find significantly better value for equal production than Keuchel.

15 Nov 2021 22:46:22
IDK where you're getting that JBJ is making 17.5M in 2022. Spotrac, B-R, Cots all have him at around 9.5-11M (B-R and Cots are 11M) . That's a sizable difference.

16 Nov 2021 04:31:55
I'd say the $8 million buyout for 2023 is fairly inevitable, no? It becomes a $4 million decision as otherwise he'd make $12 million, so I guess if he gets back to 2020 JBJ it's a possibility, but nothing in his profile suggests that.

So "paying him $17.5 million for 2022" isn't technically true, but that will probably be what he makes for just playing the 2022 season.

16 Nov 2021 13:42:59
You were including the buyout into that number. That's where the gap was. Thanks for clarifying that.

I have no reason to believe that JBJ will be better than his projection other than pure prediction on my behalf.

But I think if I'm given the choice between paying Jackie Bradley, Jr. $17.5M to play centerfield or Dallas Keuchel to be a #5 starter for me, I'd rather stick with JBJ. You can find a #5 starter for very cheap.

Not to mention, the Brewers already have a full rotation and could easily turn to Aaron Ashby, or even Brent Suter if they found themselves in a bind. No need to give Dallas Keuchel a boatload of money for a position of strength.

17 Nov 2021 16:59:43
Chi Sox,

Bradley's 8M buyout would go toward the 2023 payroll, not 2022. And the Brewers are unlikely to add a lot of payroll next year (their projection is already $140M) . Adding Keuchel makes the Crew add 18M for 2022, instead of being able to spread that total out over two seasons. They can address the 8M buyout and how to afford that in 2023.

17 Nov 2021 17:10:20
One last thing, you say that the White Sox are projected to pay Keuchel 18.3M per win, while the Brewers are paying JBJ $175M per win.

So why, exactly, are you suggesting the White Sox make this trade? I'm guessing, based on your history, that it's not because you think the White Sox just want to extend a hand of benevolence to the Brewers.

You're literally suggesting that the White Sox platoon a "$17.5M player" with a projected 0.1 WAR. Somehow, I'm not believing that you buy the projection on JBJ.

17 Nov 2021 17:12:00
Then again, the White Sox gave Adam Eaton $8M last season. So I'm not exactly accusing them of being able to make good decisions.

18 Nov 2021 14:41:42
Yes. The whole "my guy is clearly more valuable, but give me your guy instead" argument lacks conviction.

The question at hand is which would the Brewers rather have:

A replacement-level player on a 2-year, 17.5M deal (which is essentially what JBJ is) or the same on a 1-year, 18M deal?

A team with unlimited budget would take Keuchel. A small-market team would take JBJ.

18 Nov 2021 17:11:41
I think it would be better for both parties if Keuchel is with a different club in 2022. He's was not happy about not making the PS roster and his comments in 2020 about having to "teach the rest of the team how to win", given the circumstances surrounding when he got his ring, came off poorly to most of his teammates. Therefore I think from the Sox's standpoint it's worth it to take on a worse player and save only $4.5 million in the process to offload Keuchel.

Keuchel was also awful in 2021 and still was worth half a win. I think he'll be worth at least a win in 2022. The Sox have better replacement options for Keuchel and the Brewers have better replacement options for Bradley.

The logic that Bradley is on a 2-year, $17.5 million deal is incorrect. If Bradley plays 2022 and 2023 with the Brewers, he'll make $21.5 million, not $17.5 million. Bradley makes $17.5 million ONLY if he ONLY plays 2022 with the Brewers.

The Brewers would be paying $4.5 million for Keuchel, not $18 million, below market value. We have to be able to understand that Bradley is likely a replacement level player at best and the idea of a sunk cost. Whether you factor in Bradley's buyout to this year's books or next year's isn't that big of deal in my opinion. The money owed is the money owed. While they get Cain off the books in '23, they will also have more significant arb raises due to their best players (Hader, Burnes, Woodruff, Adames, etc. )

18 Nov 2021 18:59:05
I said "essentially". Jackie Bradley, Jr. will make 9.5M in 2022, and his 8M buyout (which is a 99% sure thing at this rate) would factor into the 2023 payroll. That's 17.5M paid out over two years. Or one year of playing, and one year of dead money. However you prefer to look at it, the Brewers aren't paying out 17.5M in one season. They can space that out over two seasons, which is ideal.

Dallas Keuchel is as much a sunk cost for the White Sox as Jackie Bradley, Jr. is for the Brewers. And it's quite apparent you feel that way, as you're willing to trade Keuchel for JBJ.

So your justification makes sense for the White Sox, but not for Milwaukee, as they obviously don't like paying Bradley the money he's getting, why would they pay Keuchel his? At the very least, they can play Bradley at a position where depth is needed. The Brewers don't need a starting pitcher, especially not one as bad as Dallas Keuchel.

I think it's better that the Brewers try to see if there's any juice left in the Jackie Bradley Jr. lemon before they move on to another expensive, aging player.

David Stearns passes. Trust me, I'm David Stearns.

19 Nov 2021 14:49:09
"They can space that out over two seasons, which is ideal. "

For a team not battling the luxury tax threshold, does his really matter? I would guess not. Getting out of that money sooner may be preferable given the heftier arb raises due in 2023.

"Dallas Keuchel is as much a sunk cost for the White Sox as Jackie Bradley, Jr. is for the Brewers. And it's quite apparent you feel that way, as you're willing to trade Keuchel for JBJ. "

I outlined why I feel that while Keuchel is most likely at least 1 WAR better than JBJ in 2021, the trade still makes sense from the White Sox's standpoint. They could better use the LH premium OF defender anyway. Just read above. Keuchel is the better player - saying he's as much of a sunk cost as Bradley just really isn't true.

Stearns and the Brewers would probably be all over this. Keuchel's upside as a 5th starter is much greater than JBJ's, and it only costs $4.5 million. They have Tyrone Taylor who's a much better player at this point and needs PAs.

21 Nov 2021 12:30:41
"Stearns and the Brewers would probably be all over this"

Man, you really say something and then think it's uber intelligent, don't you? I say that because reading through these comments, it's common for both you and Natedog.

Look, would the Brewers love to get rid of the money they owe Jackie Bradley Jr.? Of course they would. But you're suggesting that Keuchel is going to be this guy that's totally worth taking on an extra 4.5M. I don't agree.

The best rate I've seen projected is that teams are spending around 6.5M per WAR in baseball right now. Keuchel needs to have a 2.8 win season to get net-zero. Per you, he's projected at 1.1 WAR in 2022. He's overpaid by 250%.

So while he may have a better outlook for 2022, according to you, he's not a guy the Brewers need. Just going by Steamer, Keuchel isn't even projected to be a top 7 starting pitcher for the Brewers in 2022.

I'd rather see if JBJ can do something. Keuchel has no spot on the Brewers.

Sorry that I refuse to praise your excellent baseball knowledge. I await your further hostile and condescending responses.

22 Nov 2021 02:13:33
Keuchel getting to 2.8 WAR in 2022 is much more likely than JBJ getting to 2.8 WAR. I don't think this is even a hot take. Keuchel's floor is probably 1 WAR, barring injury. JBJ could have to seriously fight to be replacement level.

Keuchel can easily slide into Brett Anderson's role/ innings. There's a spot there. Yet you have JBJ as Milwaukee's 5th outfielder and are telling me that Keuchel has no spot.

05 Nov 2021 12:28:04
NY Mets 2022 - 2023

Mets are stuck with Cano for 1 more year and deGrom is a huge ????
My strategy is a 2 year process with major focus of shoring up pitching with this offseason and give Baty, Vientos and Mauricio another year of devopelment

Mets move this offseason
1. Extend QO to Thor, Stroman and Conforto (I suspect that only Thor may accept then look to sign long term after a healthy year)

2. Sign 2 of these starters -
Gausman, Rondon, Kershaw, Robbie Ray, Stroman

3. Resign Loup

4. Sign Chris Taylor

2022
1. CF - Nimmo
2. SS - Lindor
3. 1B - Alonso
4. LF - D. Smith
5. 3b - Chris Taylor
6. RF - McNeil
7. C - McCann
8. 2b - Cano

Starters
Degrom? (if healthy need 6man rotation)
Rondon*
Ray* (2 from list above)
Thor
Walker
Carrasco

Pen
Diaz, May, Lugo, Loup, Castro, David Peterson, Trevor Williams, Drew Smith

2023 lineup
1. CF - Nimmo
2. SS - Lindor
3. RF - Chris Taylor
4. 1B - Alonso
5. 3b - Baty
6. LF - Vientos / McNeil
7. 2b - Mauricio / McNeil
8. C - McCann

Agree0 Disagree0

05 Nov 2021 13:09:14
Offering Syndergaard a QO would be very surprising.

05 Nov 2021 13:52:10
Will the Mets even have a guy leading the front office to make these moves?

05 Nov 2021 14:54:04
What happens if Stroman, Syndergaard and Conforto all accept the QO?

05 Nov 2021 16:00:02
Stroman can't be offered a QO, on conditions of him being offered one already. (Giants are in the same boat with Gausman)

05 Nov 2021 19:02:54
facts on the front office. lol

good call on stroman. QO doesn't apply.

if both thor and conforto accept its not a bad things.

07 Nov 2021 12:06:21
I'm kinda blown away by Syndergaard getting a QO. He should accept (and I suspect he will) .

07 Nov 2021 07:04:23
When will Mets, realize if they ever want truly win . Rather try buy all best players, the reason the braves been so good for so long was they drafted and develop there own players and then when they where all ready supplement there roster with right pieces to when the World Series . This goes the same to the Yankees and red Sox and all other teams, teams that win develops there own player then when they are truly ready have a Core player on there team they had one or two pieces, if look The braves back when they won all those division titles and fact the been so good now and won the series was they had Bulk of the roster they develop their own players and then supplement the pieces that they need to win. . Instead going for the quick fix do it right way and Mets and other teams might have better chance in the future, I know this not a Popular. View but it’s how it works, stop trying buy a championship it doesn’t work .

04 Nov 2021 05:05:01
Rays offseason.

1. Pick up Mike Zunino's $7 million option

2. Non-Tender Ji-Man Choi, Ryan Yarbrough & Cody Reed

3. DFA Mike Brosseau

4. Trade Xavier Edwards 2B/SS, Derek Shenton 3B and Dietrich Enns LHP to Oakland for Matt Chapman 3B.

5. Trade Kevin Kiermaier OF, Joey Wendle INF and Chris Mazza RHP to Chicago White Sox for Craig Kimbrel RHP, Bryan Ramos 2B/3B and Misael Gonzalez OF.

6. Trade Tyler Glasnow RHP and Manuel Margot OF to Los Angeles Dodgers for Bobby Miller RHP, Kody Hoese 3B, Jose Ramos OF and Edwin Rios 1B.

7. Trade Matt Wisler RHP to Philadelphia for Christian Hernandez RHP and Jamari Baylor SS/OF

8. Sign Steven Matz to a 1 year, $8 million contract

9. Sign Jose Quintana to a minor league deal with a major league ST invite ($2 million of on ML roster)

Lineup:
Yandy Diaz 1B
Brandon Lowe 2B (L)
Wander Franco SS (S)
Randy Arozarena RF
Austin Meadows DH (L)
Mike Zunino C
Josh Lowe LF (L)
Matt Chapman 3B
Brett Phillips (L) / Jordan Luplow CF

Bench:
Jordan Luplow/Brett Phillips OF (L)
Francisco Mejia C (S)
Taylor Walls INF (S)
Esteban Quiroz INF (L)

Rotation:
1. Shane McClanahan
2. Drew Rasmussen
3. Steven Matz (L)
4. Luis Patino
5. Shane Baz

Depth: Jose Quintana (L), Josh Fleming (L), Tobias Meyers, Tommy Romero, Yonny Chirinos (injured)

Bullpen Options:
Craig Kimbrel
Pete Fairbanks
J.P. Feyereisen
Andrew Kittredge
Ryan Thompson
JT Chargois
Adam Conley (L)
Brendan McKay (L)
Jeffrey Springs (L)
Jalen Beeks (L)
Nick Anderson (injured)
Colin Poche (L)
Louis Head (R)
Brent Honeywell Jr.
Tanner Dodson
Ryan Sherriff (L)

Payroll = ~$70 million

Agree23 Disagree8

03 Nov 2021 16:05:45
Random note:

The Braves were 31-37 against teams with a winning record in the 2021 regular season.

Interesting.

Agree19 Disagree1

05 Nov 2021 14:03:45
Yes, it happens. First time since 2015 that a team with a losing record against .500 teams made it to the World Series.

Maybe Rick Hahn should start emulating Alex Anthopoulos. He seemed to figure out how to win a WS despite losing his best player (and didn't make any excuses for it) .

05 Nov 2021 14:28:17
Emulate Anthopoulos more racist pre arb extensions like those of Albies and Acuna? How dare he.

05 Nov 2021 14:33:27
This is a good example of how history shows (look it up) that there is zero causation between win% against .500+ opponents in the regular season and playoff success.

This is just a narrative that Nate made up to bash the Sox and he wasn't really concerned whether or not it was rooted in reality. It only took a couple months for it to be proven bs.

05 Nov 2021 16:00:41
Birds of a feather stick together!

07 Nov 2021 12:17:56
"It only took a couple months for it to be proven bs. "

So you have one case of something happening (once in over 5 years, and for not even the 10th time in the last 20), and my point was correct over 90% over the past 2 decades.

But yes, it's all blown to pieces because of one outlier example.

You're what we in the insurance world call, "stupid".

08 Nov 2021 10:47:42
No it wasn't because of one instance. The R^2 of playoff win% regressed on vs. > .500 win% in the regular season is between .2 and .3 SINCE 1960.

If you're simply checking off if the team had a .500 or better record against > .500 teams and whether or not they won the world series, well then that's not really how correlations work, but it's good for pushing the ole narrative.

08 Nov 2021 10:49:05
In other words, only 20-30% of the variance in playoff success is explained by regular season win% vs. > .500 teams.

Not a lot.

08 Nov 2021 13:41:59
Hey man, whatever you got to do to convince yourself that the White Sox stood a chance this year!

Because, let's be honest, that's what all this boils down to. You'd be more than happy to trot out these facts if the shoe was on the other foot. We both know you would. Here was my quote, for posterity sake: "I went from 2014-2019, and out of 24 teams who made it to the LCS in their respective leagues, just THREE (3) had losing records against .500 teams"

Also, the point wasn't the World Series. It'd help if you could understand how to read for a change. It was advancing to the LCS. We actually had two instances this year. And it's still remains less than 10 times in the last 20 years. That's not even 5%.

95% of all the teams to advance to the ALCS or NLCS over the past two decades had a winning record against .500 teams.

10 Nov 2021 04:14:33
Well when you pick a random dependent variable to fit what ever narrative you’re pushing, otherwise known as the Natedog Special, you can really “prove” anything to be true.

06 Nov 2021 16:04:38
"Oh my gosh guys! His evidence was wrong one time! Therefore, it's wrong all the time! "

The Braves 2021 World Series was an outlier to the rule, and not the norm, but please, try to convince yourself that the White Sox, who can't beat good teams despite playing in the easiest division in professional sports, can win a WS. (Hint: they won't. )

That's really the root of this. You're trying to find every possible measure to convince yourself that Rick Hahn has a club that'll win a World Series. Meanwhile, the Braves, with baseball's lowest win total and absent their best player (who is objectively a top 5 player in baseball) won it all without him.

But the White Sox were absent Luis Robert and Eloy Jimenez during non-crucial times and still use it as an excuse.

We can officially chalk up Alex Anthopoulos as yet another in the long line of superior GMs to Rick Hahn.

09 Nov 2021 13:49:44
Also, if you can't see why there's a direct correlation between how you play against .500 teams in the regular season to help understand how you might play against them in the postseason (every postseason team has a .500 record or better), then I'm really not sure how to help you.

It's probably one of the most obvious correlations one can consider when predicting postseason success.

And when teams with losing records against .500 teams make the playoffs, they have less than a 10% chance of moving on to the next round.

Notice I never said "zero". Not once. We can obviously find outliers. The Braves being one.

Also, most of the Vegas Oddsmakers factor in head-to-head record as well as record/ success versus similar teams. Hence why the White Sox, Braves, and Red Sox were the underdogs in every series they played.

It's hilarious that you're trying to demean a statistically proven principle, mostly out of trying to dunk on someone online. What's even funnier is that you, once again, missed dearly.

You're really, really, really trying to find a time to be right on this website. We can all see it's bothering you. Maybe one day, you'll get a prediction right. And when that day comes, you'll be about 10 predictions behind. But I'll still let you do your victory lap.

I'm rooting for you. Despite all statistical evidence, I still have faith you'll get an accurate prediction on here!

15 Nov 2021 13:21:08
"Also, if you can't see why there's a direct correlation between how you play against .500 teams in the regular season to help understand how you might play against them in the postseason (every postseason team has a .500 record or better), then I'm really not sure how to help you. "

Literally data tells us there is no substantial correlation, but OK dude. Like I said, only 20-30 % of the variance in playoff win% is explained by regular season win% vs. > .500+ teams. That's since 1960, pal.

"It's probably one of the most obvious correlations one can consider when predicting postseason success. "

Maybe in your head, Nate. You can convince yourself that anything is true. Probably is, there's objective evidence that proves your theory wrong.

"It's hilarious that you're trying to demean a statistically proven principle"

LOL, your "analysis" was to look at SEVEN seasons and used the arbitrary dependent variable of "advancing to the CS" as if that's the prefect barometer for a successful postseason. There is nothing "statistically proven", LMAOOOO. We've established that the reality in your head very rarely coincides with everyone else's.

Please don't get frustrated when someone takes freely available info, plugs it into a simple linear regression model, and proves your theory completely false. It seriously took 5 minutes. Also, the "correlation doe not equal causation" phrase is really kicking your butt.

You're out of your element.

18 Nov 2021 13:41:00
" your "analysis" was to look at SEVEN seasons and used the arbitrary dependent variable of "advancing to the CS" as if that's the prefect barometer for a successful postseason"

I mean, advancing past the first round of the playoffs likely indicates some sort of success in the playoffs, don't you agree?

And you can use the "correlation doesn't prove causation" fallacy all you want. That's what it is: a fallacy. I'm literally proving that there's a correlation between the two things, you insufferable dweeb.

How one plays PLAYOFF CALIBER teams in the regular season has direct impact on how one plays those same teams in the PLAYOFFS.

It's literally no different than suggesting that a team that struggles against right-handed pitching will probably struggle against Lance Lynn. It's the exact same correlative principle. There's obviously greater chance for variations, given the specifically small sampling, but it's a good starting point.

Again, Vegas Oddsmakers legitimately use things like a team's record against that team, or a team's overall record versus similar teams when setting odds.

The "correlation doesn't prove causation" argument might hold true if I was talking about two unrelated things. For example, if I said, "every team who has knowingly hired a DUI manager has lost in the first round" and then another team hires a similar manager, it would be dumb of me to apply that principle.

But if you can't see the correlation between facing playoff caliber teams in the regular season and playing them in the postseason, then I really can't help you.

Again, it's the EXACT STATISTIC that Vegas Oddsmakers use to determine favorites and underdogs, among other betting lines. Fangraphs legitimately uses a team's record versus .500 teams to help determine their ROS, postseason, and WS odds.

This isn't some out-of-the-blue idea I've concocted here, Gabriel. This is a tried and true correlation that is used by baseball experts everywhere.

No one, not even myself, said it's foolproof. That would be dumb.

But you tried to throw it in some "linear regression model" to make it sound really, really smart. I think you should know by now that no one on this site believes you in the slightest. I've beaten the brakes off of you for long enough around here, as have others, that you should probably give up any hope of sounding accurate.

18 Nov 2021 13:51:38
For what it's worth, your linear regression model argument got posted to an insurance/ actuary subreddit. It's getting quite the attention, and not in the good way, Leonard.

"That would be THE correlation most would look for when setting odds" said one comment.

Again, it's clear that you have never spent a minute doing actuaries or oddsmaking of any kind. Further evidence of this is you taking ZiPS and Steamer projections and thinking they are hard truths. You don't actually understand how this works, and, again, are just trying to pretend like the White Sox aren't an unmitigated joke of a baseball team.

They are. And you're, once again, completely wrong.

But this is what I've come to expect from you. And I eagerly await how you'll make it seem like you're the expert around here.

Read the room: no one is buying it, kiddo. No one.

Maybe get a prediction right, even just one, and maybe stop being a hilarious White Sox homer for two seconds, and maybe people will start buying into what you're saying. Chances are low, but it might not hurt to try.

18 Nov 2021 14:25:42
"I mean, advancing past the first round of the playoffs likely indicates some sort of success in the playoffs, don't you agree? "

Sure, but rather than using a subjective, binary barometer for postseason success, using win% is much better analysis.

"How one plays PLAYOFF CALIBER teams in the regular season has direct impact on how one plays those same teams in the PLAYOFFS. "

" This is a tried and true correlation that is used by baseball experts everywhere. "

Just keep saying these things and maybe it will eventually become true. The data directly says otherwise. Could you maybe show me how it's a "tried and true correlation", or do we all just need to believe you because you're always correct? What you're saying is objectively false. There's no way to spin it.

Seriously, in this instance, there's nothing subjective in me saying that there is not a strong correlation at all between regular season success vs. > .500 teams and postseason win%. This is quite literally objective data on a completely un-tuned, statistics 101 linear regression model.

"Further evidence of this is you taking ZiPS and Steamer projections and thinking they are hard truths. "

You're trying to say that I take too much stock in projection systems (I don't, they're merely helpful guides)

but then you say, well there's a correlation between this because IT WAS ON REDDIT, LMAO.

"Again, it's the EXACT STATISTIC that Vegas Oddsmakers use to determine favorites and underdogs, among other betting lines. "

That's fantastic, Nate. I'm not talking about oddsmaking, I'm talking about WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN REAL LIFE.

You're frustrated, and I get it. This kind of stuff isn't your forte. My evidence is 60 years of data and your evidence is Reddit.

18 Nov 2021 21:25:01
"You're trying to say that I take too much stock in projection systems (I don't, they're merely helpful guides) "

You literally tried to suggest that because Darin Ruf was projected at -0.7 WAR in 2022, per ZiPS, that he wasn't good. You conveniently never brought the argument back up when I proceeded to point out that Rico Garcia would also be better than Michael Kopech. Curious move.

"but then you say, well there's a correlation between this because IT WAS ON REDDIT, LMAO. "

No, I said I put your comment, formula included, on a subreddit with actuaries, who help insurance companies make decisions on data, and most everyone on it, people with DECADES OF STATISTICAL EXPERIENCE laughed at.

Again, just admit: you don't like the data because it doesn't benefit your stance that the Chicago White Sox are basically the greatest team ever. Because we both know that ANY STATS, anything you can find to prove your point, you'd use.

You'd even make the exact same correlation if helped your argument.

Heck, when you say things like "Don Cooper resurrected pitcher's careers", we know you'll say almost anything, so long as it works favorably toward the White Sox.

You also don't like this because it, once again, points to me being right. You're struggling with this reality, Damion. You were TORN UP INSIDE when the Giants acquired Kris Bryant for the exact key prospect as I predicted.

Or when I suggested that Craig Kimbrel was going to be a disaster for the White Sox.

Or when I said that Darin Ruf was better in 2021 than Jose Abreu.

Or when I suggested that, after 3 seasons, Farhan Zaidi would have the Giants in a better position than Rick Hahn has the White Sox. (He has more regular season and as many postseason wins in the last 3 seasons, his first 3, mind you. )

So I can see why you're struggling here. You tried to make up some fancy schmancy numbers, and they don't prove your point. But you NEED one. You're aching to get just one thing right on this here website.

So if you want, I can concede this one to you. Just to make you feel better. I'm feeling as benevolent as Rick Hahn giving up Dallas "Cy Young" Keuchel to teams for their sunk cost players.

Or maybe, just maybe, I'm as drunk as Tony La Russa on the day of his press conference.

I'll let you decide. But you can have this one. Don't say I never did anything nice for you.

19 Nov 2021 15:16:08
Could you link me to that subreddit? I'd be curious to see the context you put my comments in and what exactly their responses were. 0% of my evidence in that model was opinionated. Disagreeing with the result (different from my methodology) isn't really an option.

re: Ruf. Gnerally, guys that are projected to be almost a win BELOW replacement shouldn't be stacked up with reigning MVPs, or players with a career 132 wRC+ over almost 5000 PAs. Like I said, use it as a helpful guide. When a player is projected to be almost 3 wins better than another player, that's telling. When you start to micro-analyze projections within .3 wins or so of one another (i. e. Garcia vs. Kopech), that's where you start to misuse the intentions of the systems.

"Again, just admit: you don't like the data because it doesn't benefit your stance that the Chicago White Sox are basically the greatest team ever. Because we both know that ANY STATS, anything you can find to prove your point, you'd use. "

Huh? The data is objective. My results have nothing to do with the White Sox.

"You were TORN UP INSIDE when the Giants acquired Kris Bryant for the exact key prospect as I predicted. "

Could you show me where you're getting the inclination that I was torn up inside about KB going to SF?

"Or when I said that Darin Ruf was better in 2021 than Jose Abreu. "

He wasn't, we already proved this. The case is closed.

"Heck, when you say things like "Don Cooper resurrected pitcher's careers", we know you'll say almost anything, so long as it works favorably toward the White Sox. "

He did help resurrect some pitcher's careers, not an untrue statement. He led the greatest starting pitching performance in the history of the World Series.

Hey, at the very least, I know you keep everything I say very close to heart. Good effort on the "gotcha" examples tho.

22 Nov 2021 14:32:57
Still waiting on that link bub.

28 Nov 2021 03:03:14
Narrator:

"Nate's evidence was in fact, fake. The subreddit doesn't exist. "

29 Oct 2021 02:19:10
Giants Offseason

Pick up Posey's option
Re-sign Brandon Belt 1/18.4 (qualifying offer)
Re-sign Kevin Gausman, 4/84
Re-sign Alex Wood 2/20

Non-tender Alex Dickerson

Sign:
Noah Syndergaard, 2/20
Mark Canha, 3/45
Chris Taylor, 4/72
Hector Neris, 2/16

Trade:
Acquire RHP Elieser Hernandez from MIA for C Joey Bart

Acquire RHP Cole Sulser from BAL for RHP Manuel Mercedes and LHP Nick Swiney

Lineup (with DH)
2B- Taylor/La Stella
RF- Yastrzemski
C- Posey
1B- Belt
DH- Ruf
LF- Canha
SS- Crawford
3B- Longoria
CF- Duggar/Slater

Rotation:
Webb - Gausman - Syndergaard - Wood - Hernandez

Bullpen
Doval (R) - Rogers (R) - Sulser (R) - McGee (L) - Leone (R) - Neris (R) - Alvarez (L) - J. Garcia (L)

Agree1 Disagree3

29 Oct 2021 04:53:16
Why offer Belt the QO when you have an elite everyday 1B for ~$2.5 million already? Just banking on recouping a draft pick if he declines and signs elsewhere?!

29 Oct 2021 13:07:35
If they get the DH (which I think will happen), there's plenty of ABs to go around. Having TWO first basemen who have over 140 wRC+ is always a great problem to have.

29 Oct 2021 15:42:31
Exactly. In this scenario with the DH in the NL, it's going to fascinating to watch Ruf put up a 5 WAR season at 36 y/ o. Does he get MVP votes? Kapler will finally be able to unleash the beast from his shackles.

29 Oct 2021 17:56:18
It'll be great to see "weak side platoon player" Darin Ruf outperform Jose Abreu AGAIN. For the second year in a row.

But hey, the White Sox will pay nearly 8 times that amount to get worse production.

And therein lies the difference between the Executive of the Year and the runner-up: extracting comical amounts of value out of guys like Darin Ruf for almost no money or long-term commitment.

But hey, I think giving up legitimately good talent for Craig Kimbrel, and giving 18M to Dallas Keuchel, 8M to Adam Eaton, and extending Jose Abreu so he can be worse than a part-time, weak-sided platoon first basemen in 200% of the plate appearances, I guess that's really good right?

I mean, at least he made sure that he never hits arbitration with any of his players! That's worthy of a Hall of Fame spot if you ask me.

29 Oct 2021 19:30:10
I commend the Giants GM for finding a superstar playing in Korea, and here you go again attacking Rick Hahn. This has to be getting personal.

Don't forget about Hahn being an abhorrent human being because of his inability to overrule his boss. Oh, and he allowed the team to compete against the Cleveland In*ians, thereby condoning their team name. Awful. That could hurt his HOF chances due to the character clause.

He also traded a generational talent for James Shields - don't sell him short.

"extracting comical amounts of value out of guys like Darin Ruf for almost no money or long-term commitment"

Hahn has literally never done this one single time. He was granted good players from a genie who he very easily traded for highly regarded prospects. Then those new players became good in the majors based on pure luck alone. In fact, Zaidi started this "sign bad players, make them good" trend. Let's recognize greatness before us.

01 Nov 2021 14:39:34
"In fact, Zaidi started this "sign bad players, make them good" trend. Let's recognize greatness before us. "

I mean, the Los Angeles Dodgers are kinda the team they are because Andrew Friedman let Zaidi do what he did in Los Angeles.

That's right, one of the most talented baseball teams in MLB History is where they are because of Farhan Zaidi. So as much as you exaggerate, it's probably more true than you're comfortable with.

01 Nov 2021 15:34:19
I laugh about you mocking me for the Indians nickname. You're the only one getting your panties in a twist over it. Frankly, I don't really care. I think baseball has a lot more issues than a poorly contrived caricature of a people group.

Some of them include:

-Allowing low-character individuals to keep having jobs in baseball. Rick Hahn was literally okay with his team hiring TLR, he even praised it later on. He also reportedly really wanted A. J. Hinch, who led one of the biggest cheating scandals in baseball history.

-Taking advantage of low-income and disadvantaged minorities through pre-arbitration deals that limit those individuals' ability to make more money later on. What would Tim Anderson make through arbitration right now? More or less than 9M? (Hint: the answer is WAY, WAY more than 9M) . The White Sox knew that Anderson, Moncada, and Jimenez would get way more expensive for them down the road, so they took advantage of them and offered them upfront money knowing those players had next to no leverage to turn down those offers. It's interesting how they didn't do this with Lucas Giolito or Andrew Vaughn. Could it be that those guys come from upper-class households and thus had leverage in turning down deals? No way. That could never be the case.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the White Sox are the only team doing this. I would never. But according to you, they "revolutionized" it.

Once again, look through the players that have historically sign these deals. Other than ones with high-variance and low-expectations (i. e. Scott Kingery, Evan White), the over-whelming majority are non-white players or players from lower economic environments.

I don't think that's merely coincidental. And before you say it, yes, the Giants have their history with doing this, although they have typically reserved this practice for pitchers (i. e. Bumgarner, Cain, Lincecum), and they haven't done it for several seasons now.

To the White Sox, this is what Hahn gets praised for: taking advantage of zero-leverage players.

But yes, let's cover our eyes and think that a team's nickname is the big problem!

02 Nov 2021 04:51:44
Yes. I distinctly remember the White Sox holding their young players at gun point without food and water for long periods of time and forcing them to sign $70 million contracts. This scandal will be greater than the Astros.

Guys like Moncada and Robert were obviously struggling after the respective $32 million and $26 million signing bonuses they got out of Cuba were running out. Hahn clearly took advantage. I suppose maybe in snooty San Francisco those would be considered low socioeconomic incomes, but otherwise I think those guys were able to narrowly get by pre-extensions. Luis Robert’s new Naruto-wrapped Lamborghini Aventor is a good signal of that, I’d say. Poor guys.

I guess Hahn’s moral compass is much worse than yours when your alternative is to pay the organization’s minority players the least amount possible for as long as possible.

Did Zaidi get a ring last year from the Dodgers as a result of him being the only reason why they won? I guess the Giants said thanks to their rivals for giving them the most influential executive in baseball history by losing to them when it counted. That was nice.

05 Nov 2021 13:14:38
"Did Zaidi get a ring last year from the Dodgers as a result of him being the only reason why they won? "

He didn't. But reportedly, he received a nice gift from Andrew Friedman as a recognition of what he helped build. No indication of what that was. To be clear, Zaidi has taken teams he runs to more World Series than Rick Hahn EVER will. 2017 and 2018, he was there. 2020, just 2 seasons removed, the Dodgers were back.

Again, this is more than Ol' Ricky can say.

05 Nov 2021 13:32:57
"Yes. I distinctly remember the White Sox holding their young players at gun point without food and water for long periods of time and forcing them to sign $70 million contracts. "

Yeah, maybe refrain from mocking Charles Johnson and his stupid donations when you yourself don't understand the nature of systemic racism that is rampant in the game, especially through pre-arb deals.

The idea that "they aren't hurting" is so hilariously off that you can't possibly think you're being serious.

If I told you that I could either pay you $100M over the next 6 years, or $50M, but I'm willingly pushing to pay you $50M, you'd be rightfully livid. You wouldn't care that $50M is "enough to live on" when you could literally make 50-100% more money over the same period of time.

The White Sox know that Robert, Moncada Jimenez, Anderson didn't have the leverage to turn down $50M. They knew those guys couldn't afford the risk of going year-to-year in arbitration and possibly facing non-tender if they tank. So they offered money way, way lower than the projected value to those players, knowing they'd accept.

Again, ask why Lucas Giolito, who grew up in an area where the average household AGI is over $400K or Andrew Vaughn (avg. household AGI is over $150K) weren't signing those deals? Or Dylan Cease ($128K)? Sense a theme here?

The White Sox are literally taking minority, low-economic class players and limiting their earning potential through pre-arb deals that are 100% to the benefit of the team, long term. They do this, again, knowing that the players have no leverage to turn it down.

They are willingly and actively manipulating and limiting the earning potential of minority players. In fact, it's almost a sure bet that if the White Sox have a young, talented minority baseball star, they'll sign them to one of these deals.

And I fully expect them to do the same with Cespedes and Oscar Colas.

They LOVE manipulating the earning power of minority players. It's just what they do.

05 Nov 2021 13:37:24
That nice gift was an early trip to Cabo while the Dodgers went to the NLCS.

05 Nov 2021 16:05:40
What did TLR do to celebrate his one playoff win? My guess: probably did a bunch of Jaegerbombs and drove Robert's Lambo all across the greater Chicago area.

It's just what he does.

05 Nov 2021 17:51:09
Joking about DUI? Ahhhh.

07 Nov 2021 12:08:56
I mean, which would you rather see: someone joking about a guy getting multiple DUIs, or someone willingly hiring a guy with multiple DUIs.

You have a hard time seeing the forest for the trees, so I'm not surprised by you feigning some level of disgust here.

The White Sox just comically overpaid for another under-performing white guy, and they won't pay minorities even close to their value in arbitration. They also knowingly and willing hired Tony La Russa.

Maybe point your anger that way.

08 Nov 2021 10:51:15
The Giants better not sign a single white player this season. Seeing that most and their good players are already white, you have to question whether their intentions. Are they even targeting minorities? Or is Charles Johnson's directive clear?

08 Nov 2021 14:00:16
LOL. Are you being intentionally obtuse, or is this something that comes naturally for you? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you're making me lose faith.

If you can't see how pre-arb deals for Latino and minority players are evidence of systemic racism throughout the game, I really don't know if I can help you. And you should probably stop trying to move this to Charles Johnson, who literally HAS NOT MADE A SINGLE DIRECTIVE TO THE GIANTS IN OVER A DECADE. Greg Johnson made it explicitly clear that Charles Johnson just acts as principal owner and hasn't been in a board meeting in years. His voice is worthless to the Giants.

Even Zaidi and many within the Giants front office spoke up in regards to Johnson's questionable campaign donations. Zaidi then assured that he's not heard a directive from Charles since he started, and Bobby Evans confirmed the same thing.

Unlike Jerry Reinsdorf, who willingly hired a horrible human being and his entire front office just went along with it.

The Giants will likely sign white players. They'll probably sign minority players. They just picked up Jay Jackson's 2022 option, despite them not exactly needing him in 2022, if you want just one example.

This isn't to say that the Giants don't have their own set of issues, but they've also acknowledged it and publicly stated their desire to get better and work against their own prejudices.

Meanwhile, Rick Hahn just overpaid Craig Kimbrel by 100-200% of his actual value, but desperately seeks to underpay his own minority players. There's not a single public statement made from him about systemic racism. Not one.

He's one of just three GMs/ PBOs who haven't made a statement of anything across the game. And his own personnel decisions when it comes to which players they acquire, play, and for how much, make it evidently clear why that's the case.

08 Nov 2021 14:22:05
"Are they even targeting minorities? Or is Charles Johnson's directive clear? "

Should someone tell Charles Johnson he employs multiple black players (Jackson, Davis, Wade)? Or nearly a dozen Latino players? Or a Muslim president of baseball operations? Or a black coach? Or a, gasp, female coach?

Man, his directive was heard loud and clear by the organization. They clearly don't employ any minorities!

Seriously, you sound ridiculous.

But as they say, a hit dog will holler. And you are definitely hollering right now.

10 Nov 2021 04:40:43
“ If you can't see how pre-arb deals for Latino and minority players are evidence of systemic racism throughout the game”

This will remain the most idiotic take on this site for a long, long time. You are literally arguing for the alternative which guarantees that players are paid the league minimum for the first 3 season followed by 3 seasons where they are paid a % of their marginal revenue product. The club assumes ZERO risk from year to year.

The players have all the power in the world to turn down these massive extensions no matter their race, because at worst, they’re paid a league minimum value that is more than 88% of American households make. They can still get plenty of food on the table. Usually, players in the position to accept these deals are well on their way to making millions of dollars through their arb years. They don’t need the extension to become millionaires.

People inherently don’t want their compensation to vary from year to year based on performance, it’s why the compensation smoothing phenomenon is real. These deals greatly benefit both sides at the moment they are signed, but this should be obvious because THAT’S WHY THEY’RE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON IN THE FIRST PLACE. Some work out great for the players and some work out great for their teams.

“Should someone tell Charles Johnson he employs multiple black players (Jackson, Davis, Wade)? Or nearly a dozen Latino players? Or a Muslim president of baseball operations? Or a black coach? Or a, gasp, female coach? ”

LOL! This is the Giants version of, “I have a black friend, I can’t be racist. ”

Of their projected started nine, the Giants have one minority player. Pretty despicable if you ask me. You voluntarily support this team?

06 Nov 2021 14:26:03
"The White Sox know that Robert, Moncada Jimenez, Anderson didn't have the leverage to turn down $50M. "

Again, Moncada and Robert had humungous signing bonuses in their back pockets. They had all of the leverage in the world. The White Sox guaranteed Tim Anderson $25 million after 398 games of an 86 wRC+. He wasn't considering if he was ever going to be worth $100 million+ at the time, he was trying to survive in the league and the Sox guaranteed him life changing money. He'll end up making $52 million from the contract. How obtuse and out of touch can you be?

Since TA's extension he's hit .322/ .349/ .495 with a 127 wRC+ and is one of the faces of baseball. It's not racism, lmao, it's a smart investment. If Anderson was confident enough in himself that he'd ascend to stardom like this, he could simply turn it down and still make more than 99% of Americans do over the course of 6 years. He also got a $2.2 million signing bonus out of a junior college, so he would have been a very wealthy human being either way.

"If I told you that I could either pay you $100M over the next 6 years, or $50M, but I'm willingly pushing to pay you $50M, you'd be rightfully livid. You wouldn't care that $50M is "enough to live on" when you could literally make 50-100% more money over the same period of time. "

What? the $100 million is not guaranteed. You could could play terribly and get non-tendered or sustain a career-altering injury and walk away only having made 1-3 years of league minimum. Both sides are taking a risk with a pre-arb extension. If it was as easy as choosing $100 million or $50 million, there would never be a contract extension. But it's not that simple. Players in general would rather have their contracts be guaranteed year to year rather than it being based on their performance even if means sacrificing some total dollars. It's called compensation smoothing.

Don't mention Chris Sale or Aaron Bummer tho and their pre-arb extensions with the White Sox. They don't fit your convoluted narrative so they don't count in this instance.

The Braves did the same thing with Albies and Acuna, is their FO racist too? How about the Brewers with Freddy Peralta? Yankees and Aaron Hicks? Cleveland and Jose Ramirez? Cardinals and Carlos Martinez? Philly and Odubel Herrera?

Boston tried to extend Mookie Betts tried numerous times but he bet on himself and it paid off. All of the player listed above, including the Sox players could have done the exact same thing.

So now if any club signs a minority player to an extension, they are racist. And again, your alternative is to pay them the league minimum for as long as possible before only giving them a percentage of their market value through arbitration. Which option is manipulating earning power again?

"Again, ask why Lucas Giolito, who grew up in an area where the average household AGI is over $400K or Andrew Vaughn (avg. household AGI is over $150K) weren't signing those deals? Or Dylan Cease ($128K)? Sense a theme here? "

They are trying to extend all three, but none of them are as wealthy as Robert or Moncada were before they signed their extensions. But again, you're advocating that the team guarantee the white players more money. You're shooting your own argument in the foot.

This is a terribly embarrassing argument by you. How you continue to get worse is beyond me, and everyone else on this site.

14 Nov 2021 19:36:47
"Of their projected started nine, the Giants have one minority player. Pretty despicable if you ask me. You voluntarily support this team? "

Once again, a hit dog sure does holler. Your desperate attempts to hide the systemic racism that is RAMPANT in the White Sox front office, as well as the incredibly low moral character of their executives. I'd probably try and use a lot of words to try and defend it as well, especially if I knew how horrendous they truly were.

Seriously, I'm beginning to think your character is that of TLR's with these defenses.

I kind of feel bad for you.

15 Nov 2021 13:31:39
You're saying that I'm hiding the theoretical systematic racism in the contract extension market (a tremendous stretch at that, and you still have yet to address my rebuttal of the alternative to an extension for these minority players), yet your team's blatantly racist owner is off the hook because "oh, he's not really involved".

It's very convenient for you.

You're not looking for a discussion, you're looking to point the racism finger, which is usually reserved for someone who lacks other defendable arguments.

TBH, an argument that the current CBA contractual control structure is "racist" would have been better than the contract extension market where both sides literally have to agree.

17 Nov 2021 16:34:44
LOL. Yes, we're talking about the DECISION MAKERS in these cases.

Charles Johnson doesn't make any decisions for Giants personnel issues. Rick Hahn and apparently, Jerry Reinsdorf do.

Charles Johnson doesn't get a pass for being a grimy creep, but when we're talking about racism as it pertains to a ballclub, you might be able to deduce that a non-involved owner shouldn't be considered, don't you think?

Again, your character is that of trying to throw someone else into the mix to try and minimize your awfulness. It's a bad look for you, but I'm not surprised in the least bit.

You're supporting a racist team who also doesn't care that their manager is a drunk and risked people's lives. Maybe focus on that before trying to throw complete non-sequiturs into the fold.

18 Nov 2021 14:49:57
Ok Nate, we can just pretend that the Giants' largest shareholder makes absolutely zero decisions regarding what the organization does. That totally makes sense. I'm sure the team's chairman, Johnson's son, shares some of the same views as his daddy too. Does he also have nothing to do with decision making?

It's just one big racist family business out in San Fran.

Surely they have a saint of a CEO, right? Nope. Larry Baer gets physical with his wife on occasion, but soon Nate will tell us that he also doesn't have anything to do with the team's operations or decision-making.

What was that you said? "your character is that of trying to throw someone else into the mix to try and minimize your awfulness. It's a bad look for you, but I'm not surprised in the least bit. "

The irony, LMAO.

Maybe I should start making the argument that TLR doesn't actually make any of the calls from the dugout, that it's Miguel Cairo and Tony is just there for show. That way he's off the hook!

01 Dec 2021 19:33:30
" I'm sure the team's chairman, Johnson's son, shares some of the same views as his daddy too. Does he also have nothing to do with decision making? "

He has, on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, made it known that he doesn't hold any of the same political views as his father. We've been over this. And when Charles was making those donations, it was pointed out that he is merely a silent partner, who continues to just rake in the money. Nothing more. He literally hasn't been a part of the board meetings, whose minutes are publicly available, in years.

As for Larry Baer, he served a several month, unpaid suspension for his actions. He has sought the help he needs, and been very forthright, publicly, about his short-comings.

Did Tony La Russa even get a punishment from his own team? Nope. They tried to HIDE THE INFORMATION and pretend like they didn't know. They paraded him like he was this excellent manager.

Do you need reminded that their second choice was a guy CAUGHT IN ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHEATING SCANDALS IN BASEBALL HISTORY?

The White Sox couldn't wait to hire a piece of _____ as their team's manager. Hahn had his choice. Jerry had his.

Turns out, the drunk driver got picked over the cheater. But yes, that's so much better than a silent partner.

27 Oct 2021 04:46:10
A 3-team, 10 player trade? Yes.

White Sox, Diamondbacks, Angels

White Sox Get:
Ketel Marte 2B/OF

DBacks Get:
Justin Upton OF
Griffin Canning RHP
Andrew Vaughn 1B/OF
Wes Kath 3B
Yolbert Sanchez SS
Micker Adolfo OF

Angels Get:
Nick Ahmed SS
David Peralta OF
Dallas Keuchel LHP

Thoughts?

Agree6 Disagree6

28 Oct 2021 15:05:36
The CWSox would love getting Ketel Marte. no doubt.

The rest of the deal is a mish-mash of distastefulness.

-Why would the Angels consider losing a young/ controllable SP. but would take back Old Man Keuchel? .

-The DBax are going full rebuild at this point. but would want a $ 28 MM salary from Justin Upton. Why would they want to see Amed leave and have his replacement as Sanchez?

It's a confusing deal for the DBax and Angels. but the CWSox definitely get their guy.

28 Oct 2021 18:32:22
I'm not sure that Vaughn + Sanchez is enough to cover the $28M of unnecessary salary going to Arizona.

Not to mention, Griffin Canning isn't very good, and young pitching is something the Diamondbacks have quite a bit of, and most of them exist as better options than Canning.

And Adolfo will be out of options, so the Diamondbacks, who are rebuilding, would likely want a player they can option out if they should choose to. They can't do so with Adolfo.

28 Oct 2021 18:35:10
As for the Angels, I think they might consider trading Ohtani for longer than they'd consider this deal.

They'll have a myriad of options via free agency for SS, OF, and starting pitching. Paying almost 35M for 3 past-prime players, when much, much better options exist elsewhere would be silly.

28 Oct 2021 19:35:50
So Upton is essentially a sunk cost at this point. He hasn't been a league average hitter since 2018 and is a liability in the outfield. So he's going to sit on the bench or be a weak-side platoon piece as one of the highest AAVs in baseball. By offloading 100% of his money and acquiring Ahmed, Peralta and Keuchel for only another $6 million TOTAL, they would be filling three of their needs - 1. An above avg. defensive SS, 2. a left handed OFer who isn't exciting, but has much better upside than Upton IMO, and #. a back end starter (You could argue they need to add 4 SPs to be competitive) who, yes was objectively bad in 2021, but they can think of it as paying him $2 million in 2022 for a rebound. That defensive INF with Keuchel's GB% would be a nice pairing theoretically.

Again, it's a $6 million addition for all three guys in 2022, so you can defiantly go out and sign two more SPs (Scherzer, Ray, etc. ) and a versatile bat (a la Chris Taylor) .

By taking on Upton for 2022 in this deal, they actually still net $20 million in savings, so it's not just the prospects in exchange for taking on $.

And I disagree about Adolfo, Nate. Arizona is exactly the team where he makes sense as they would be able to give him opportunities to see if his raw talent can manifest into Major League production. If he stinks, they can just outright him likely without fear that he'd be claimed.

28 Oct 2021 19:39:09
To be honest, I expect to see a lot of posts from Chi Sox where the White Sox conveniently find a taker for Dallas Keuchel and also get something good for him.

So let's remind the world of Dallas Keuchel's stats:
ERA- 5.28
FIP- 5.22
K/ 9- 5.28
K/ BB- 1.61

Now, for his rank among all starters with 100 innings pitched minimum (129 players in total)

ERA- 114th
FIP- 120th
K/ 9- 128th
K/ BB- 128th

He's literally one of the worst pitchers in baseball. And yet, the White Sox can both dump him off to the Angels AND get Ketel Marte as a part of that package, without taking on any money themselves.

How awfully convenient!

28 Oct 2021 20:14:25
If you read above (this often needs to be reiterated with you, Nate) -- like I said, Keuchel was bad in '21, so thanks for finding evidence to confirm what I already said? LAA would essentially be paying next to nothing for him. They have no use for Upton, Keuchel has an opportunity to bounce back to be a serviceable veteran left-hander with plenty of postseason experience, whether you think that's likely or not.

The Sox are also giving up some good young players here. They, along with LAA, are filling holes inexpensively. Arizona is getting 5 controllable players and save money in total while getting it off their books quicker.

So saying an Ohtani trade is more likely is completely asinine and right up your alley.

29 Oct 2021 01:57:44
"Post season experience"

He had an 8.10 ERA in the 2020 playoffs and was so bad in 2021 that the White Sox didn't even let him pitch in the postseason. Unless the White Sox are paying down 12-15M of Keuchel's salary, I see zero reason why the Angels would want to shell out 18M for a #5 (at best) starting pitcher hoping he might bounce back.

I also posted my Keuchel stats before your rebuttal was posted, so I'm curious how you expected me to read what you said?

29 Oct 2021 02:06:33
Also

"So Upton is essentially a sunk cost at this point. He hasn't been a league average hitter since 2018 and is a liability in the outfield. So he's going to sit on the bench or be a weak-side platoon piece as one of the highest AAVs in baseball. "

So, exactly why would Arizona want him? If anything, Arizona is more likely to OFFLOAD money, not take more on. And I don't think that Andrew Vaughn suddenly makes it worth it to take on $28M of sunk cost AND give up their most valuable asset.

The more and more I look at this, the more I think it's actually pretty bad for Arizona.

I think this return WITHOUT Upton is pretty close. With Upton, the White Sox probably need to give up Cespedes and possibly Crochet as well.

29 Oct 2021 04:38:53
Arizona does offload money in total. Please read.

29 Oct 2021 04:44:50
And the good thing about the return for ARI is Vaughn isn’t the only asset they get back. Kath and Sanchez are good prospects.

LAA is only taking on net $6 million, for THREE guys that fit. They could do this and still theoretically go after Scherzer and Ray, or one of those and try to build a bullpen on the fly.

29 Oct 2021 13:12:21
There's zero reason for the Diamondbacks to offload money for USEFUL players only to take on 28M (which is more than they shed) for dead money.

It literally makes zero sense.

And getting a 1B prospect who looked completely outmatched in his rookie season along with some high variance middling prospects probably isn't worth giving up Ketel Marte AND taking on 28M of dead money.

This isn't to say that Kath and Sanchez don't have positive outlooks, but this is Arizona selling very, very low on Ketel Marte (and the White Sox conveniently buying very, very low) .

29 Oct 2021 13:14:19
Frankly, if you wanted this to look remotely fair, I'd do the following:

1. Move Upton to the White Sox.
2. Replace Wes Kath with Jared Kelley
3. Keep Keuchel on the White Sox.

The White Sox dodging 46M in salary and still getting Ketel Marte is so laughably one-sided that it's hard to take this seriously at all.

29 Oct 2021 13:19:08
"LAA is only taking on net $6 million"

But they could take on that "net 6 million" with better, more useful players, could they not?

Why pay $18M for Dallas Keuchel when they could pay significantly less for a better pitcher? They could just not acquire Keuchel and instead get Scherzer (35M) and a very good pitcher for 8-14M a year and save at least 4M.

The same is true for both Ahmed and Peralta. There are far, far better options out there for the Angels. Why lock yourself into some of the worst options?

It makes no sense for them. They could just spend that money on better players.

29 Oct 2021 15:37:08
"But they could take on that "net 6 million" with better, more useful players, could they not? "

No, probably not. Not a league average corner OF bat, a 5th starter and one of the best defensive SS in the game. Even with all three coming off of down years, Peralta, Keuchel and Ahmed would cost at least $15 million on the open market.

"The same is true for both Ahmed and Peralta. There are far, far better options out there for the Angels. Why lock yourself into some of the worst options? "

The beautiful thing is that they're not locking themselves out of anything. You're acquiring depth for $6 million. By filling LF and SS, they can allocate all of their resources to where they should -- the rotation and the bullpen. Then if they still want to still add a bat, they could go after Bryant or Taylor as a versatile ​bat.

Do you really think they're going to be the mix for one of the top tier SS? I don't. Who's to be had after that?

"there's zero reason for the Diamondbacks to offload money for USEFUL players only to take on 28M (which is more than they shed) for dead money. "

Math is hard:

Peralta is owed $8 million
Ahmed is owed $18 million
Marte is owed $30 million

Upton is owed $28 million

Can we agree that $56 million > $28 million? Or are we going to disagree wth that too? Even without Marte, they'd be taking on an extra $2 million to not owe anything in 2023.

"And getting a 1B prospect who looked completely outmatched in his rookie season along with some high variance middling prospects probably isn't worth giving up Ketel Marte AND taking on 28M of dead money. "

Vaughn had a 107 wRC+ through August (prior to landing on the IL with a back injury) playing a position he'd never played after a mere 245 minor league PAs. This includes the mid-June to mid-August stretch where he hit .303/ .367/ .528 with a 144 wRC+ in 200 PAs. If that's completely over matched to you, then OK I guess.

You want to argue for Kelley over Kath? Fine, but some clubs would value Kath over Kelley I think. I think another valid argument would be that LAA needs to send a better piece than Canning to ARI.

For the sake of a thought experiment, Nate, if a salary floor was part of the new CBA, would that change your opinion of this deal, particularly for Arizona?

29 Oct 2021 18:23:50
"For the sake of a thought experiment, Nate, if a salary floor was part of the new CBA, would that change your opinion of this deal, particularly for Arizona? "

No, it wouldn't. Just because owners would be forced to spend a minimum amount of $$$ doesn't mean they are just going to throw it any player with two thumbs.

I could see them taking on Upton for one reason, and one only:

They "buy" a prospect or a package of prospects, but keep Ketel Marte. They then get to get good young talent, meet their salary threshold, and then find a better, more advantageous deal for Ketel Marte.

The Diamondbacks would get Andrew Vaughn for Ketel Marte, straight up, if not even more going back their way. There'd be no reason to include Upton or Keuchel (both of whom are "dead money" at this point in their careers) .

29 Oct 2021 19:37:44
"The Diamondbacks would get Andrew Vaughn for Ketel Marte, straight up, if not even more going back their way. There'd be no reason to include Upton or Keuchel (both of whom are "dead money" at this point in their careers) . "

Taking on Upton nets Arizona value, they aren't sacrificing it. You are struggling to wrap your head around the math. They are getting a nice return for Marte alone and are cutting payroll commitments by 100% overall. They leave the deal with Bumgarner's $23 million as the only $ committed for 2023.

01 Nov 2021 15:03:26
"Taking on Upton nets Arizona value, they aren't sacrificing it. "

Remaining money: Ahmed + Peralta = 26M; Justin Upton = 28M.

The Diamondbacks, who are looking to shed money, are taking on MORE money, and worse, more money on a player who is objectively worse than the two they are "shedding".

Ahmed + Peralta 2022 WAR = 2-3 (esitmated)
Justin Upton 2022 WAR = 0.5

So the Diamondbacks lose 2-3 wins, by dumping "one of the best defensive SS in the game" and a "league average corner OF bat" (both of whom could, according to you, get $15M on the open market) and instead, they get Justin Upton at a cost of $2M more?

This doesn't factor in the cost of a player to fill the roster spot that has to play SS in Arizona in 2022. So let's just add $4M more.

To replace the "cost cutting" of Ahmed and Peralta, the Diamondbacks add $6M in payroll.

Not to mention, the Diamondbacks can do a whole lot more than "break even" on Ketel Marte. Someone will overpay, significantly for him. The dude was literally a nearly 3-win player in less than 400 PAs and is on an insanely team-friendly deal through 2024.

You seem to think that Mike Hazen is just interested in breaking even on that trade. I promise you, he's not, and he won't have to.

01 Nov 2021 15:11:43
A White Sox-Diamondbacks trade that would be more likely, for Marte:

White Sox get: Ketel Marte; Drew Ellis
Diamondbacks get: Andrew Vaughn; Yoelqui Cespedes, Yolbert Sanchez, Jared Kelley

That represents a pretty decent overpay, but the White Sox are literally getting an MVP-caliber 2B/ CF for $8M (the exact same amount Hahn paid Adam Eaton last year LOL) . It also allows them to keep Jose Abreu at 1B for the foreseeable future.

It allows the Diamondbacks to accelerate their rebuild with 3 prospects (including Vaughn, who technically isn't a prospect anymore) to be ready by 2023, where they'll have no financial commitments beyond Bumgarner and Ahmed, both of whom they could clear by then.

To be clear, the Diamondbacks are taking on 100% of the risk here. Not one of those prospects, including Vaughn, is a can't-miss type player. Not a single one. And because we're talking about the White Sox system here, it's obvious that this deal would be outdone by at least a dozen teams, probably closer to 20, all of whom would see Marte as an obvious upgrade over what they currently have.

So yeah, the moral of the story here is: The White Sox aren't, ever, getting Ketel Marte for the hilariously one-sided trade you proposed.

03 Nov 2021 02:33:27
If Vaughn isn’t “can’t miss”, then exactly who is? I’d say he’s a top-5 “safe hitter” prospect. And FWIW, I wouldn’t call any prospect “can’t miss”. He was a consensus top-20 prospect for a reason.

You were also ignoring the money owed to Marte. The Diamondbacks leave this deal committed to less money than when they entered. You are still clearly confused. They also wouldn’t have Ahmed’s $10 million on the books for 2023, where, like you said, then could at least start buying some interesting players.

Even if Marte isn’t included in the calculation, you’re taking on a front-loaded sum that’s only $2 million more than you’re giving up and getting Canning (or if you don’t like him, then a pitching prospect of your liking) as compensation.

But your big addition is to add a 35+ OFer in Cespedes? In exchange for Wes Kath? Kath is probably their best hitting prospect. Your package isn’t so much different from mine and one could easily argue that mine was better.

05 Nov 2021 13:51:23
Ketel Marte is completely underpaid. Yeah, an underpaid minority player. I can see why the White Sox would desperately want him.

And also absolutely not want the vastly overpaid minority player that is Justin Upton. They'd just rather overpay white players like Adam Eaton, Dallas Keuchel, Craig Kimbrel, and possibly even Hendriks and Lynn.

Acting like Ketel Marte's contract is something undesirable for Arizona is hilarious and yet, completely within what I expect from you. Any team employing him is getting a 4-5 win potential player for 8M. Again, the White Sox paid that same amount to DFA Adam Eaton midway through the season. That's what kind of value we're talking about here.

"Even if Marte isn’t included in the calculation, you’re taking on a front-loaded sum that’s only $2 million more than you’re giving up and getting Canning (or if you don’t like him, then a pitching prospect of your liking) as compensation. "

You're, once again, missing the point. The issue is that if the Diamondbacks are going to sell low on Marte by also dealing out Ahmed and Peralta, then why would they also take on $28M?

Their goal is to clear any and all money, future or present. Taking on $28M now AND selling low on their most valuable trade asset does nothing but hurt them.

It continues to make less and less sense for the Diamondbacks the more you try and sell this trade.

05 Nov 2021 14:38:32
"And also absolutely not want the vastly overpaid minority player that is Justin Upton. They'd just rather overpay white players like Adam Eaton, Dallas Keuchel, Craig Kimbrel, and possibly even Hendriks and Lynn. "

hahaha. I can see the Jeff Passan tweet now:

"To fight racism, the White Sox are trading Lucas Giolito, Andrew Vaughn, Michael Kopech, and Aaron Bummer to the Angels for Justin Upton and his guaranteed $28 million. "

05 Nov 2021 16:09:56
I can see the Bob Nightengale tweet now:

"Sources: Diamondbacks GM Mike Hazen taking on a $28M bench player and some mediocre young players to sell really low on Ketel Marte. "

The thing is, even old Bobby N would be more believable than you. That's pretty sad, even by your standards.

05 Nov 2021 17:55:40
I think it's funny that you hope for Marco Luciano's sake, Zaidi doesn't offer him life changing money through a pre-arb extension where everybody wins because he's 100% guaranteed to sign a $100 million contract after his 6 seasons of control.

This is a new level of stupid.

07 Nov 2021 12:13:30
Why would I care one bit that the Giants get a deal on Marco Luciano (or hope for it)? I don't. I'd love to see Luciano get paid as much as he possibly can over the course of his career.

It's literally not my money and I never root for owners. So I want to see players make the most of their money. (I'll still mock it when teams overpay for talent, a la Rick Hahn. )

See, I'm not racist. I don't love cheering on dudes who legitimately take advantage of minority players. It seems you have zero qualms with this issue. But yet, QAnon, that's the squeaky wheel! Yeah, perhaps a little introspection could go a long way, Brandon.

08 Nov 2021 11:03:20
You arguments are just patently awful.

So if both parties enter into a risky proposition, i. e. The Sox handing an 86 wRC+ hitter $25 million guaranteed to a hitter who they are confident will become worth that contract because of his raw talent, there are two possible outcomes.

1. Tim Anderson continues to hit to a 86 wRC+ or worse and is worth no where near that contract. In this case you argue good for TA for maximizing on his potential.

or

2. Anderson turns into a star and the Sox are racist for handing him life changing money at a time where he was 14% worse than that the average performer in his field.

Your argument is as dumb as they come.

"See, I'm not racist. I don't love cheering on dudes who legitimately take advantage of minority players. "

No, you just cheer for a club that hardly employs any minority players.

08 Nov 2021 14:17:21
"No, you just cheer for a club that hardly employs any minority players. "

Minority players on current 40-Man Rosters:

White Sox: 13. Anderson, Moncada. Abreu, Grandal, Robert, Jimenez, Gonzalez, Adolfo, Lopez, Ruiz, Mercedes, Severino, Zavala.

Giants: 14. Wade, Flores, Estrada, Castro, Doval, Garcia, Alvarez, Jackson, Gonzalez, Nunez, Dubon, Davis, Santos, Marte.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Seriously, do you just say nonsense and pray that it's true? The Giants legitimately employ more minorities than the White Sox, and it's not just players. They have a black coach (Richardson), AAPI coaches (Correa, Uematsu), and even a female coach (Nakken) . For crying out loud, they have a Muslim man of Pakistani descent leading their front office.

This might be your most ridiculous take yet. And that's truly saying something.

The Giants very well may be one of the most diverse organizations in baseball history.

Seriously, I don't know whether to laugh at you or just feel bad for you. I think I'll find a mixture of both and settle for that. So pathetic.

13 Nov 2021 11:55:37
Exactly, the Giants have some role players and roster filler minority players while the Sox's core was built with minority players. It really begs the question whether or not the Giants are comfortable with minority players as the face of their franchise moving forward.

It's a tough look as they search for the next Aubrey Huff in free agency, lol.

14 Nov 2021 19:30:39
"It's a tough look as they search for the next Aubrey Huff in free agency, lol. "

Yes, the same Aubrey Huff who is essentially banned from the clubhouse, stadium, and scrubbed from all of their recent history, yes, that's who they are looking for!

But hey, you should probably hope Tony La Russa doesn't fall off the wagon. He's been known to do that, and the White Sox literally don't care the least bit!

15 Nov 2021 13:33:27
He was banned and "scrubbed from recent history" after he stopped providing the organization with value, Nate. Open your eyes.

17 Nov 2021 16:37:51
"He was banned and "scrubbed from recent history" after he stopped providing the organization with value"

So you agree that he was banned? And yet you tried to backdoor a pathetically stupid argument into the conversation, why?

Literally, the Giants refuse to have any further association with an awful, terrible human being like Aubrey Huff.

Meanwhile, Tony La Russa is STILL EMPLOYED BY THE WHITE SOX! And they literally hired him knowing he had DUI charges, and didn't care, in the slightest.

What your sad, feeble attempt proved was that the Giants disassociate with awful human beings and the White Sox do not.

So thanks for clearing that up/.

18 Nov 2021 16:14:09
Again, when Huff was performing on the field and winning World Series, employing him for three years was no big deal. This shouldn't be surprising though considering who runs the team.

The Giants do not disassociate with awful human beings given that they are run by the Johnson family and Larry Baer.

24 Sep 2021 10:03:38
One last bit... you made sure to pretend that the Giants bullpen was bad.

Here was the quote: "I'm sorry to say, but they probably have the worst bullpen of playoff caliber teams. That'll be tough come October."

You said that on August 2nd. Let's get an update on how the two bullpens have been since August:

Chicago White Sox: 3.56 ERA, .276 wOBA against.

Now, for the "worst among contenders" Giants bullpen:

2.64 ERA, .276 wOBA against.

The Giants did this while playing a gauntlet of excellent baseball teams during that stretch, including the Brewers and Braves (two series each), the Dodgers, Padres, and Athletics.

Agree3 Disagree1

25 Sep 2021 19:18:38
I said their pen could be a problem come October, not the end of September.

Reading is hard.

Comparing must win games for the Giants vs. non-must win games for the Sox is called a skewed sample. The marginal value of a victory for the Sox is your sample here is exponentially lower that a win for the Giants.

27 Sep 2021 18:31:49
The Giants bullpen has a WPA/ LI of 13.51, second only behind the Dodgers.

They are literally one of the best bullpens in baseball in high leverage situations. They are literally one of the best bullpens when playing top-level teams.

Against the current and highest projected playoff teams, who has the lowest ERA and wOBA? If you guessed the San Francisco Giants, you'd be correct.

Seriously, not a single metric or statistic agrees that the Giants have the "worst bullpen of playoff caliber teams". In fact, EVERY statistic suggests the exact opposite: they might have the best bullpen of all playoff teams.

Once again, HOW ARE YOU SO BAD AT THIS?

27 Sep 2021 23:24:30
Mr. BABIP and FIP regression himself selectively omits this rationale when it doesn't help his own narrative.

It's almost as if there's a pattern forming here.

28 Sep 2021 05:51:43
ERA and wOBA against playoff teams, by playoff bullpens, ranked.

Giants- 3.23 ERA, .278 wOBA
Rays- 3.30, .297
Dodgers- 3.79, .294
Cardinals- 3.89, .292
Red Sox- 3.92, .316
Astros- 3.94, .307
Yankees- 4.24, .318
Braves- 4.31, .291
White Sox- 4.92, .346
Brewers- 5.31, .332

We'll put it another way, if the bullpens were a pitcher, and the wOBA represented a hitter, here's what the matchup would look like (stats from 2018-2021)

Giants- Jack Flaherty vs. Dee Gordon
Rays- Zack Wheeler vs. James McCann
Dodgers- Aaron Civale vs. Mike Zunino
Cardinals- Marco Gonzales vs. Yolmer Sanchez
Red Sox- Kenta Maeda vs. Eric Hosmer
Astros- Dallas Keuchel vs. Alex Gordon
Yankees- Joey Lucchesi vs. Gary Sanchez
Braves- Johnny Cueto vs. Nicky Lopez
White Sox- Trevor Cahill vs. Matt Chapman/ Marcus Semien/ Francisco Lindor
Brewers- Vince Velasquez vs. Buster Posey

I ask, which matchup would you rather have: Jack Flaherty vs. Dee Gordon, or Trevor Cahill vs. Semien/ Chapman/ Lindor?

The choice is obvious. And so it is with which bullpen is better.

08 Oct 2021 14:35:46
Chi Sox, this says nothing of "regression". Most of these bullpen arms will surely regress, which is why Zaidi won't make long-term commitments to them.

But you'd have to prove that this regression will occur conveniently during the playoffs. Good luck with that.

Also, you'd have to prove what the "mean" BABIP for a bullpen that has just TWO returning relievers from 2020 (Rogers and Garcia) would look like. There's not enough data to point to any actual mean number. The same is true for xFIP. You need some solid sample to point to a "mean", and there's just not enough to build that number.

So yeah, they'll likely regress. Will it be to their 4.20 xFIP? Perhaps, perhaps somewhere between their 2.99 ERA and 4.20 xFIP.

(Don't forget that xFIP punishes pitchers like Jose Alvarez and Tyler Rogers who are pitch-to-contact pitchers and have made a skill out of inducing weak contact) .

Will that regression take place, all of a sudden, during a 3-19 game span in the heart of the postseason? It's extremely unlikely to see regression take place so quickly. It's happened, but it would require a monumental collapse of everyone at the same time.

And based on what we saw out of the 2021 Giants, you probably shouldn't bet on that.

08 Oct 2021 15:13:11
Also, please tell me how the Giants will regress toward the 4.20 bullpen xFIP when all season, THEY'VE BEEN MOVING AWAY FROM IT!

July ERA- 3.66, 91.0 IP
August ERA- 2.46, 120.2 IP
September ERA- 2.42, 137.1 IP

Yes, you're reading that right: the ERA drop correlated with a steady rise in innings pitched by the bullpen. All of this, mind you, while playing deeply impactful games against very good baseball teams. From July to October 3rd, the Giants played 35 games against .500-or-better teams, not including tough games against the Padres, who are still a very good baseball team.

So if the Giants bullpen is going to regress for the playoffs, it'll be the fastest regression we've likely ever seen, and it would completely buck the trend in which they've been playing.

But I'm sure they'll conveniently regress, just for you, Frankie! Good luck!

08 Oct 2021 21:26:49
Craig Kimbrel. What a pickup LMAOOOOO.

09 Oct 2021 14:56:51
“ (Don't forget that xFIP punishes pitchers like Jose Alvarez and Tyler Rogers who are pitch-to-contact pitchers and have made a skill out of inducing weak contact) . ”

Lol, When you were fighting tooth and nail a few years ago to try and prove to me that Will Smith was far superior to Aaron Bummer, calling for Bummer’s xFIP regression was fair game. Now when it’s SF relievers, you choose to consider the big picture like Rogers’ and Alvarez’s BIP profiles.

But hey, at least you’re slowly learning, but only when it fits your convoluted narrative at a given time.

09 Oct 2021 15:02:30
And Kimbrel. Wow, just wow.

18 Oct 2021 14:45:30
"But hey, at least you’re slowly learning, but only when it fits your convoluted narrative at a given time. "

LOL. You still think, despite LITERALLY EVERY STAT SAYING OTHERWISE, that Jose Abreu had a better 2021 than Darin Ruf.

I'm not sure you're in the position to accuse anyone of having a "fitted convoluted narrative" that ignores stats.

If you need further proof that Darin Ruf was better and more valuable, look at this:

Ruf: 2.5 fWAR, 1.275M salary.
Abreu: 2.9 fWAR, 17M salary.

Let's see how that fits into the whole team:

% of team WAR vs. percentage of team payroll:

Darin Ruf: 4.8% of team WAR, 0.7% of team payroll.
Jose Abreu: 5.5% of team WAR, 12.1% of team payroll.

So not only was Ruf STATISTICALLY better, he was of far more value than Abreu. Like, it wasn't even remotely close.

And the fact that you continue to refuse this information shows why you should find a new hobby. You're probably the most comically wrong person on this site, consistently. And not having bwright around makes it a lot worse for you. You should find him, because you REALLY need someone to make you look smart again.

18 Oct 2021 14:52:36
And yes, I used xFIP back in 2019. I was wrong then. I'm willing to admit that.

You, however, won't admit that you've been wrong about the Jose Abreu vs. Darin Ruf thing. Not once.

Nor have you acknowledged how wrong you were about where the Giants were in their timeline, or how you thought the White Sox were "on par with the Dodgers" or how you thought Craig Kimbrel was this incredible talent worth an excellent return, or how believed Cesar Hernandez would be better than Trevor Story ROS.

All of these things were things you've said within the past 12 months.

Maybe you should start by acknowledging all the stupid things you've said in the last 12 months before rehashing something someone said over 2 years ago. At the very least, start there, THEN, you can come at me about my xFIP statements from 2019, which I now admit were wrong at the time.

Fair?

19 Oct 2021 23:20:27
"All of these things were things you've said within the past 12 months. "

1. I never said that Hernandez would be better than Story -- I said it was a distinct possibility.

2. Kimbrel was the best reliever in baseball when he was acquired and he deserved that kind of return They completely botched his role, largely due to the incompetency of their manager. He should have been the 9th inning guys with Hendriks given the highest leverage situation in the 6th-8th.

Madrigal is a polarizing prospect in terms of his value. He has one elite tool with the others only average at best. Heuer is a nice relief arm with a lot of control.

20 Oct 2021 15:42:50
Wait, so Craig Kimbrel was the best reliever in baseball, but he was mismanaged because he was given the higher leverage spots? Shouldn't the "best reliever in baseball" be given the highest leverage spots available, regardless of inning?

The LI for Kimbrel (1.43) vs. Hendriks (1.51) was marginal. So I'm not sure I agree.

As for Kimbrel's "talent", I was never convinced that Kimbrel who was really bad in 2019 and 2020 wasn't going to sustain his 2021 numbers with the Cubs. I just didn't buy it. Hence why I thought it was hilarious that anyone would give up MLB-ready talent for him.

I really don't care about your assessment of Madrigal's value, that was a significant overpay, and I pointed that out the day it happened. You acted like I was dumb. This was your quote: "Of course you think the White Sox locking down maybe the most talented bullpen of all time is a bad deal. "

You'd do any number of federal crimes to undo that trade.

Or this: "Acting like this doesn’t give the White Sox an absolutely filthy bullpen, i. e. what wins in October, for the next 2 seasons, is ridiculous. "

He literally made their bullpen worse when it mattered most.

I was, once again, right about this. You were, once again, wrong. And there's proof of it.

It's really okay to admit that you've had your rear handed to you time and time again on this site by me. It doesn't speak poorly of your character at all.

In fact, not acknowledging what you, myself, and everyone else on this website can VERIFY for themselves as truth, that's the character issue.

Instead, you're holding someone accountable for being wrong 2 years ago (despite them acknowledging they were wrong), but you won't hold yourself accountable for being wrong MULTIPLE TIMES in the past 3 months.

This is a serious character flaw of yours. It makes you a bad person, quite frankly. But I'm not surprised. I've met my fair share of White Sox fans. You're par for the course.

20 Oct 2021 21:27:33
"Shouldn't the "best reliever in baseball" be given the highest leverage spots available, regardless of inning? "

Theoretically? Yes! Unfortunately, Kimbrel seemingly needed a more structured routine.

"I was never convinced that Kimbrel who was really bad in 2019 and 2020 wasn't going to sustain his 2021 numbers with the Cubs. I just didn't buy it. Hence why I thought it was hilarious that anyone would give up MLB-ready talent for"

He was never going to sustain a 0.49 ERA, no, but giving up ML talent for the best reliever in baseball isn't as crazy as you're making it out to be.

Do I make the trade in hindsight? No. However, without the benefit of hindsight, I make that trade 100/ 100 times and I think it would've worked differently had Kimbrel been given the 9th inning from the start, and its absolutely fine for you to disagree with that, a lot of people do - but I'm not the only one that said that Kimbrel should have been the closer from day 1. Hendriks literally said he didn't care what inning he pitched as long as the team won. Kimbrel is trying to rack up saves to build the best HOF resume possible.

"He literally made their bullpen worse when it mattered most. "

Again, this just objectively wrong. I'm not sure what you're thinking about when you make some of the claims that you do, but they're typically non-sensical. Hence:

White Sox bullpen pre-trade: 4.14 ERA, 4.01 FIP, 3.95 xFIP, 6th best fWAR

White Sox bullpen post-trade: 3.72 ERA, 3.36 FIP, 3.67 xFIP, 2nd best fWAR.

So yeah, no, you were not "right about this" LMAO. The bullpen improved down the stretch after acquiring Kimbrel.

"It's really okay to admit that you've had your rear handed to you time and time again on this site by me. "

LOL, alright dude. I think you're starting to take this a bit too seriously.

"you're holding someone accountable for being wrong 2 years ago (despite them acknowledging they were wrong), but you won't hold yourself accountable for being wrong MULTIPLE TIMES in the past 3 months. "

I promise you, I'm not holding you THIS accountable. Feel free to carry on with your life. I forgive you.

"It makes you a bad person"

WOOOOW, we're getting deep now, Nathan!

20 Oct 2021 23:41:36
"LITERALLY EVERY STAT SAYING OTHERWISE"

Except, of course, WAR - the only stat you needed back in July when Ruf's was higher.

Regardless, this is an apples to oranges comparison. Any time you have to reference the per 600 PAs stat adjustment to attempt to scale the stats, the comparison is likely a bad one. Why you ever brought up Jose Abreu when discussing Ruf is beyond me.

If the Giants could pay Ruf $1.25 million to take Abreu's role and not have to pay Brandon Belt THE SAME SALARY AS ABREU just to be the strong-side of the platoon, Zaidi would take that instantly - but you know as well as I do that Ruf is not an every day player. But still, as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, I've never bashed Ruf overall as a player. He is a GREAT piece to have on a championship contending team, and the Giants deployed him optimally.

Let this one go my man. It's not that important. Ruf is a good player, and so is Abreu in a drastically different role.

25 Oct 2021 17:48:51
" but giving up ML talent for the best reliever in baseball isn't as crazy as you're making it out to be. "

It is when it's pretty obvious to a lot of folks, myself included, that Craig Kimbrel was playing well beyond his actual talent. He proved that the moment he traveled down I-94. So yeah, it was crazy then, and it's crazy now, as you even acknowledge.

25 Oct 2021 17:55:55
"Again, this just objectively wrong. I'm not sure what you're thinking about when you make some of the claims that you do, but they're typically non-sensical. Hence:

White Sox bullpen pre-trade: 4.14 ERA, 4.01 FIP, 3.95 xFIP, 6th best fWAR

White Sox bullpen post-trade: 3.72 ERA, 3.36 FIP, 3.67 xFIP, 2nd best fWAR.

So yeah, no, you were not "right about this" LMAO. The bullpen improved down the stretch after acquiring Kimbrel. "

You're not actually serious, are you? You understand that the REST of the White Sox bullpen carried the average, right? And that the bullpen would have been SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER had it not been for Kimbrel's 5.09 ERA during his stint, right?

Think of this way, if you have a lazy, good-for-nothing employee, we'll call him "ChiSox", and let's say that ChiSox was decent for a while, and while he was kind of helping out, your company made $50 million in a quarter. But then, the next quarter, all of a sudden, ChiSox just stops coming into work, and he actively loses you money, but your company makes $75M. You wouldn't, in your right mind, look at ChiSox and think, well, collectively we got better when you started being useless, so here's a pay raise.

No, you'd think, "everyone else had to work harder to achieve this success IN SPITE OF YOU. "

ChiSox literally made the company worse than it could have been. Craig Kimbrel literally made the White Sox bullpen worse than it could have been. They were better post-trade deadline in spite of Kimbrel, not because of him.

And maybe, just maybe, without Kimbrel, they could have won TWO PLAYOFF GAMES, instead of just one. Who knows?

But if you're really going to pretend that because the White Sox COLLECTIVE bullpen improved, that Kimbrel didn't hold them back and make them worse, then you truly are the biggest and objectively worst type of homer available.

I actually kind of feel bad for you. You truly believe the laughable BS you keep spewing.

25 Oct 2021 18:15:44
"Ruf is a good player, and so is Abreu in a drastically different role. "

Yes, Jose Abreu is a STARTING FIRST BASEMAN, paid $17 million dollars a year to be marginally better in terms of wins above replacement than a first baseman who was literally brought to San Francisco to be a replacement level player.

Not to mention, if Darin Ruf is the "weak side of a platoon", what do we do with Abreu, who was worse than Ruf on BOTH SIDES.

wRC+ vs. LHP and RHP

Abreu: 161/ 116
Ruf: 166/ 126

"but you know as well as I do that Ruf is not an every day player. "

That's literally false. Again, the ONLY reason they didn't need Darin Ruf to start full-time was because they had a 1B with a 165 wRC+ against RHP. How many RHH 1B have a 126 wRC+ or better against RHP? Just 7. Some of the names: Vladdy, Goldschmidt, Alonso.

How many have a 166 wRC+ or better against LHP? 3. That's it.

Again, the Giants didn't start him every day because they legitimately don't have to. You see, unlike Rick "2nd Place GM in a Mickey Mouse Season" Hahn, the Giants built up comical depth. And their right-handed platoon 1B, who has 47% of the plate appearances as the White Sox's STARTING 1B was worth 86% of Abreu's WAR.

You understand that's better, right?

Again, if you looked at two businesses, and you said, "Business A made $1 billion dollars while business B made "860 million" therefore, business A is better" you'd probably want to know that Business B is only open 6 months out of the year, compared to Business A, who is open 365 days a year.

Business B is literally better, in every economic and statistical factor.

So you keep dropping the "Darin Ruf is a part-time player" argument, and you continue to fail to recognize that this actually hurts your argument. A part-time player, to the tune of less than half the amount of playing time, was almost as good as the full time player. This is a fact.

25 Oct 2021 18:40:51
One final way to think about it:

What would Abreu be if he had just 312 plate appearances? He needed over 650 to do what Darin Ruf did in 300.

And then ask, economically, who do you prefer: the guy you only have to pay a million dollars to, play half the time and produces 2.5 wins, or the guy you have to make your most expensive offensive player, play him all the time, and get 2.9 wins?

If you've ever hired someone, ran a business, or even done simple mathematics, you pick the part-time player, literally every time. You wouldn't even think about it.

Producing more in less time is always preferable. Darin Ruf produced a rate of .008 wins per plate appearance. Abreu? .004.

It cost the Giants $4,086 per Darin Ruf plate appearance. It cost the White Sox $25,796 per Abreu PA. Hahn paid 600% more per PA to get just 50% of the production.

The Giants paid $500K per Darin Ruf win. The White Sox paid 5.8 MILLION per Abreu win. Again, they finished with 2.5 wins and 2.9 wins, respectively, which is so marginal that saying Abreu was "better" because of WAR is pretty silly.

Look no further than FG's glossary: "For example, a player that has been worth 6.4 WAR and a player that has been worth 6.1 WAR over the course of a season cannot be distinguished from one another using WAR. "

I'd bet decent money that the cut-off for this wasn't 0.3, and that 0.4 is suddenly distinguishable.

Their WAR productions are almost identical, and yet, Abreu took twice as long to get to his as Darin Ruf.

This isn't even a matter of me being a homer. Every indication PROVES that Darin Ruf is the more valuable player, and the better player.

If you want to prove yourself as not being a laughable White Sox homer, you should acknowledge this as true. It's the right thing to do if you want to be a person who values facts and lives in the real world.

Somehow, I'm not confident you'll embrace the truth, though.

26 Oct 2021 14:37:46
"But if you're really going to pretend that because the White Sox COLLECTIVE bullpen improved, that Kimbrel didn't hold them back and make them worse, then you truly are the biggest and objectively worst type of homer available. "

Well, the collective bullpen quite literally improved after the trade per, you know, those pesky stats Nate. This is literally the bullpen as a whole. LOL

Here are the numbers again for you:

White Sox bullpen pre-trade: 4.14 ERA, 4.01 FIP, 3.95 xFIP, 6th best fWAR

White Sox bullpen post-trade: 3.72 ERA, 3.36 FIP, 3.67 xFIP, 2nd best fWAR.

26 Oct 2021 15:00:35
Lucky for Zaidi, Belt is now a FA. So he can simply have Ruf play 1B for 150 games and viola, he has a 5-win player for $2.6 million. Given your opinions here, that is the clear and obvious solution.

Oh wait, that would be really dumb to try and deploy a weak-side platoon injury-prone 36 year old bench piece who has never played 120 games in a season for a full season's worth of PAs? You don't say. I think this Zaidi guy is smarter than even you give him credit for!

26 Oct 2021 15:04:32
And maybe, just maybe, with a better bullpen, the Giants could have won THREE PLAYOFF GAMES, instead of just two. Who knows?

17 Nov 2021 16:44:22
You clicking the "agree" button 11 times is adorable, Franklin.

The Giants literally took a team that won 105 games to the last game of the NLDS. Their bullpen, for what it's worth, wasn't the reason they lost that series.

But you're continuing to ignore the truth: the Giants went further into the playoffs than the White Sox with a bullpen that consists of:

Tyler Rogers, who throws 82 and doesn't strike out dudes.
Jake McGee, who has been mediocre for most his career.
Dominic Leone and Zack Littell, who were MiLB deals.
Camilo Doval, who had not even a full season above AA ball before becoming the Giants closer.

Meanwhile, the White Sox are going to pay HALF OF THE GIANTS CURRENT PAYROLL on Craig Kimbrel and Liam Hendriks.

And don't forget Aaron "Never going to Regress" Bummer (who is an unmitigated racist. I took 3 classes with him at the University of Nebraska) . According to you, the White Sox top 6 relievers were better than the Giants #1 reliever.

And yet, the White Sox still got ousted in shorter time by a worse team (the Astros, FWIW, had a losing record to the Giants) .

Just face it, little guy, the Giants are an OBJECTIVELY BETTER baseball team than the Chicago White Sox (emphasis on white) .

18 Nov 2021 16:36:04
Ah so after previously calling Bummer a good dude and rooting for him, now he's an unmitigated racist. Gotcha

You also are insinuating that I said or believe that Bummer was never going to regress, when in reality, you were calling for a massive Bummer regression by citing xFIP as your rationale, LMAO. We don't forget, don't try to twist it.

"You clicking the "agree" button 11 times is adorable, Franklin. "

What? People just recognize you're full of it my man. Welcome to reality. I'm pretty sure you can only vote on a post once.

And wow, it turns out the Cornhuskers really do admit anyone.

"Meanwhile, the White Sox are going to pay HALF OF THE GIANTS CURRENT PAYROLL on Craig Kimbrel and Liam Hendriks. "

As if both of these guys aren't elite relievers, one of which being arguably the best in baseball.

"The Giants literally took a team that won 105 games to the last game of the NLDS. Their bullpen, for what it's worth, wasn't the reason they lost that series. "

It wasn't necessarily why they lost the series, but the Dodgers having a better bullpen than the Giants in game 5 was one of the main reasons why they lost that game. Camilo Doval can't be the guy on the mound when the season is on the line. The fact that you can't admit that is telling how much of a homer you are. The Giants can do no wrong.

 


MLB Trade Rumors


MLB Trade Rumors 2


MLB Trade Rumors 3


 
Log In or Register to post

User
Pass
Remember me

Forgot Pass