MLB Talk

 

Use our rumors form to send us mlb trade rumors.

(single word yields best result)

If you didn't know, we have a NBA trade rumors site and a NFL trade rumors site

This page last updated: 16:11:39

20 Nov 2017 02:56:38
Javy Baez for Parker Bridwell/Cam Bedrosian

Why for Cubs?
They get two bright young pitchers with 4 and 5 years on control respectively to fill their biggest needs and they still have Zobrist and Happ at 2B.

Why for Angels?
They get their long term answer at 2B who would provide a great double play partner with Simmons. Plus they still would have Richards, Heaney, Skaggs, Shoemaker, Ramirez, Tropeano, etc in their rotation plus they still would have money to spend.

Agree0 Disagree5

20 Nov 2017 08:21:16
Doubt the Cubs would do it. They likely believe they can get a better pitcher for Baez.

Agree4 Disagree0

10 Nov 2017 14:22:08
And to answer your question, they are taking on all the money.

Agree0 Disagree0

10 Nov 2017 14:21:30
Why would the Yankees give up Judge in a package. He is the centerpiece of that team.

Agree0 Disagree0

06 Nov 2017 22:07:36
Chi Sox, did you see Fangraphs' Steamer projections for 2018?

Their projection for Garcia:
.281/ .339/ .454, 19 HR, 69 RBI.

If you look back, what I stated their projection would be: .285, 20 HR, 70 RBI.

You said you'd bookmark your projections. I've got mine, and I got them almost to a tee with what Fangraphs put.

For reference, yours were: .295, 28 HR, 90 RBI.

We shall see.

Agree4 Disagree1

07 Nov 2017 02:04:07
I don't normally like to gloat, as I generally let the truth speak for itself.

But considering his recent statements, I thought I'd remind him of where we stand.

Agree3 Disagree1

07 Nov 2017 03:48:37
Truly amazing, statbook. I really wish I could show you how impressed I am that you were finally right . on a . projection.

It's crazy how they can project those things without even knowing who will be hitting around him yet.

Agree0 Disagree4

07 Nov 2017 04:00:08
And yet, there you were, arguing with me about how ludicrous the projection was.

And no, it's not that crazy, except the RBI projection, which really is pretty much garbage and no one cares a bit about it (I just wanted to reveal how close I was) .

Notice the HR projection? Not close to 30, at all. Haha.

Agree4 Disagree2

07 Nov 2017 04:15:05
Notice too, that even Fangraphs think Garcia is going to regress hardcore? EVERY point I stated (of which you insisted to argue with me) was featured in these projections.

If we give him a few more hits to make him a .290 hitter, his BABIP is .350, exactly. (You also argued that .350 BABIP doesn't make him a .290 hitter) .

It's almost as if I knew what I was talking about.

Agree5 Disagree2

07 Nov 2017 18:31:28
I didn't say your prediction was ludicrous, I just disagreed with it.

Agree1 Disagree4

08 Nov 2017 11:32:44
Batting average and OBP are also affected by who is hitting around you. Aka baseball common sense if you've ever played. But we don't have to get into that again.


You made your projections based on what is on Fangraphs already, so when they slightly update their new projections in early NOVEMBER, you haven't really proven anything. But hey, I know you crave being right in any facet on this site. We get it, we know your narrative. "I'm always right, everyone else is always wrong. "

I'm also curious to see what Avi's 2017 streamer projections were in November.

Nonetheless, happy hot stove season.

Agree1 Disagree3

08 Nov 2017 13:47:35
No, I made my projections based on his 2017 numbers, and considered standard regression, and didn’t elevate any totals to unnecessary or absurd levels (i. e. home runs) . I did all this before Fangraphs put out their Steamer projections.

And the projections won’t change drastically with updates to teams. They might change slightly, but they won’t see Garcia as some .300/ .360 guy simply because they improved at catcher (or wherever) . It’ll be very small, almost unnoticeable changes. It might go up as high as .285, because the projections still have to account for BABIP regression, moderate power, and low-to-average speed.

If the White Sox go out and add J. D. Martinez or something, maybe these projections will see a massive swing, but don’t bet on it happening. ZiPS will likely strike a similar note when they come out in February.

Agree3 Disagree1

31 Oct 2017 04:04:36
I just read that the Marlins are wanting to dump Prado Gordon and Stantons contract who do you think they would trade each too?

Agree0 Disagree0

01 Nov 2017 03:54:15
Stanton- who knows? It's going to be a team who is willing to take a gamble on that contract. If he gets hurt, you have $250+ MM in dead salary.

Gordon- Blue Jays, Angels, or Brewers.

Prado- Stays in Miami. Plenty of 3B options, not enough openings.

Agree0 Disagree0

24 Oct 2017 11:14:23
Question of the Day:
Did @thestatbook pull a Skip Bayless and create a new account so someone would voice their agreement with him in our debates? Hmmm, "ilikebaseball", no posts, no comments prior. Very suspect, "dawg." That would actually be hilarious.

Agree1 Disagree12

25 Oct 2017 02:43:09
It isn’t me. But I know who they are. I told a friend about our debates and he joined this to troll.

Just ignore him, or don’t. It’s your choice.

Agree3 Disagree0

25 Oct 2017 03:09:03
haha u just mad no one agrees with u.

Agree6 Disagree2

25 Oct 2017 04:29:36
Hahaha right!

Agree1 Disagree9

25 Oct 2017 14:45:51
Well this is interesting. Your just mad because thestatbook obliterated you in the that post. He is usually right about these things. If I hadn't been so busy the last few weeks, I would have agreed with him on this. So let's first talk about the prospects, they are not guaranteed to pan out. I can name a handful of guys who were top prospects and didn't pan out. I find it hilarious you think no team can top any offer the White Sox could make. I agree with thestatebook about the Cubs and Nationals systems. Just because they don't have that many or no top 100 prospects, doesn't mean they can't make a big trade. They have depth that could help them out with that problem. Guess what, after the top 100 prospects that the White Sox have, their depth is lacking. You said they have one of the best systems we have ever seen, clearly a homer. The Yankees still have a better system, because of depth. Your even more delusional for thinking the White Sox could EVER afford Manny Machado. You said the Yankees would never trade Torres, especially with Florial and Adams. Teams say they won't trade prospects all the time, then they trade them. Half of that argument was you being petty, You come off as someone who has to be right all the time.

Agree3 Disagree1

25 Oct 2017 14:59:02
BATMAN! Must be a fake account I created too.

Agree6 Disagree0

25 Oct 2017 19:37:48
Batman, we have an 82 year old owner worth 1.5 Billion that is going to spend whatever it takes, he's already said that. He has been conservative in the past, but all indications are that it's going to change in 2019. The Bulls aren't going anywhere anytime soon, so he's going to put his money into the Sox in the near future. They aren't going to have a $250 payroll, but they have virtually no money on the books for 2019 and beyond, so I think they'll at least dish out 1 huge contract.

They have, by far the best farm system in baseball currently. The best I have ever seen, maybe you could point to a better one if the history of baseball. No depth outside of the top 100? Wow. Burger, Collins, Fulmer, Dunning, Adams, Adolfo Sheets, Gillaspie, etc. That's better than like half of teams BEST prospects.

Who are the Cubs going to center a trade around to get a blockbuster done? Schwarber? Baez? Yeah right.

I don't have to be right all the time. On multiple occasions, I pointed statbook out for having really good points, bringing up things I didn't think about.

Agree1 Disagree2

25 Oct 2017 20:58:25
Spend to do whatever it takes? Since when has he done that? Never, almost everyone they have signed in recent history has been flop. You see Reinsdorf spending $45 million on just one player? I don't, that would be at least half the White Sox payroll for YEARS to come. BTW your owner is a clueless old man. Again with your farm system assertion, after all the top 100 prospects they have, they severely lack depth. That is another factor what makes a farm system great. Carson Fulmer is garbage, Zac Collins didn't hit anything all year, and went down in rankings, not even a top 100 anymore. Adams had 4.45 ERA this past season, his ERA climbs up each level he goes up. Gillaspie hit 223 between the Rays and White Sox Organizations. Sheets is largerly unproven and needs more time before you have a valid argument for him. Do you know why the Astros always have a good farm system, even after trades and promotions? Because they probably have the best in all of baseball, as do the Yankees, Brewers, Braves, and Cubs. You are saying you don't have to be right all the time, but here you are trying to be right.

Agree2 Disagree1

25 Oct 2017 21:11:43
But the Giants ownership, led by Charles Johnson (net worth ~4.6B, along with other filthy rich guys, can't afford to have Pence and Stanton on the same team?

These wild takes, man. You really are something else.

Agree3 Disagree1

26 Oct 2017 10:52:23
Statbook, The giants COULD keep both Stanton and Pence, but all I was saying is that they probably don't want to pay him $18 to sit the bench and pinch hit. They could use that $18 to bolster the bullpen, add a starter, or even add 2 bench guys who may even be better than Pence in that role. They had like a $175 MM payroll to essentially be the worst team in baseball. They aren't exactly thriving. I know they will spend to win, but spending stupid money doesn't sound right.

Batman, The man with 7 Championship rings is a clueless old man. I don't think so. Like I said if you read my post, he has been historically conservative with his money. With that being said, he has said his #1 goal is to bring another championship to Chicago. Up until this year, the Bulls had been pretty good. Now both of his teams are in a rebuild, but the White Sox are much further along. The man is 82, who knows how much time he has left. He knows he needs to make the most of this opportunity.

The largest contract in White Sox history is Jose Abreu, I would say that worked out pretty well. Don't act like he has never spent before. From 2006-2008, they had a top 5 payroll. If they can show this year that the young guys have serious potential, he's going to go for it because the team will probably never be in a better situation to spend big $$ and win it all when he owns the team, or when he's even alive.

If the Sox severely lack depth, then virtually every system does. Is there any prospect site that doesn't have the White Sox as the #1 farm system right now? Let me know. It's also easy to say "after their top 100 prospects", but before Moncada, Giolito and Lopez graduated, they had 9 or 10 top 100s (depending on what site you want to source) . 10 guys in the top 100? That's a good start to having good depth. Depth isn't just how many guys that are considered good but not great (right outside the top 100). Having depth can also be you have a lot of really good prospects too. The only system that even comes close to the Sox right now is Atlanta. If all those non-top 100 guys for the Sox are awful, show me a better system with better non-top 100 prospects.

Agree0 Disagree0

26 Oct 2017 14:18:52
6 of the championship rings are with the BULLS, one 12 years ago with the White Sox. The White Sox have done nothing since, maybe been to the playoffs once since 2005. He is clueless in the baseball department, we are NOT talking about Basketball. And if you read what I said more clearly I said ALMOST ALL everyone they have signed as been a bust, never said everyone. Secondly I don't see them signing Manny Machado to a 10-12 year 400-450 million deal, and also signing Adam Jones too. Secondly let's talk about how he even more clueless, Kenny Williams who was the GM for a while and responsible for all the terrible contracts, terrible trades, awful farm system and terrible drafting, should have been fired years ago. But he got promoted, HOW? He was terrible, its called false loyalty. Next let's look at your pitching coach Don Cooper, supposedly one of the best pitching coaches in the game. Yet that staff regularly has an ERA in 4s. He should have been fired years ago, he should not have survived all the managerial changes over the years. Next let's look at the recent hiring of the latest manager, Rick Renteria, he was terrible with the Cubs and fired after one season. He is not a good manager, a rather dumb decision if you ask me. You're saying just because they at one point this year had 10 top 100 prospects that means they have good depth, no it doesn't. you have to look in the ENTIRE organization. They have to a plethora of everything that scouts will rave about. For instance I'll use the Yankees as an example they have a ton of pitchers, middle infielders, outfielders, some catchers, and some first baseman that people rave about. I never hear the White Sox get those raves after a few select players. The Astros, Dodgers, Cubs, Braves, Brewers, Cardinals, and a few other teams do to.

Agree2 Disagree1

26 Oct 2017 15:34:00
In fairness to Renteria, it's unfair to cite his firing. That team was putrid, and rebuilding teams often just hire any warm body they can (see: Ron Gardenhire) . Very likely, the White Sox will can Renteria when they actually want to become serious about being a good baseball team.

Agree0 Disagree0

26 Oct 2017 18:30:20
First of all, If you don't hear about the Sox system getting raves, what rock are you living under? Literally Baseball America, MLB Pipeline, everyone constantly RAVES over their entire system. They also have a pretty good spread of different positions, although I'd like to see a good LHP in there. They also have a #4 pick next June. If you don't believe that they have the best system in the league, you are an absolute fool. Let's make that clear.

Secondly, They have around $6 Million committed for 2019. This is pre-arb, so let's be generous and say they have $40MM in players before free agency. If they are trying to contend it 2019, they could easily have a $120-130MM payroll. So that leaves what, $90MM to spend? Plus all the guys that will still be on rookie/ arb contracts. I count 8 guys JUST from my proposed starting rotation and lineup that will be making minimal $$. It's probably more like 12 or 13 guys with a bullpen and bench. Adam Jones was a possibility for me, but after going over his CF metrics for 2017, I probably won't push that much for them to sign him.

They easily could give Machado $30-$35MM per year and then build the rest of the team (maybe 5-6 guys) with $40-50 Million. That's not hard to do. I'm not saying they'll have a $200MM payroll. Also if Machado puts up a 2.9 WAR in back to back years and hits .260 again, maybe we need to pump the brakes on $450 million.

For Kenny Williams, I mostly agree with you. He made some bad deals as the GM, but he's out of that role now. But when you break an 88-year drought, you're going to get some leeway. Just like Cubs fans are going to give Joe Maddon leeway for the duration of his time as manager, even though he did a terrible job managing games in the playoffs this year and was even questionable last year.

Rick Renteria did an unbelievable job this year. And he was fired because the Cubs had the opportunity to get Maddon, obviously. He got a team that was designed to lose games to play their butts off every game, and we saw some really good things out of young players, not all, but most signs were encouraging. Being bi-lingual on a team and with a farm system that is filled with a ton of Latin American players is also severely underrated. Is he the ultimate answer? Only time will tell and 2018 will be big for him. Also, the Cubs fired him because they had the opportunity to get Maddon, obviously.

But probably the most idiotic thing I've ever read on this site, which says a lot, is that Don Cooper is a bad pitching coach. Survived all the managerial changes? He's pretty much been under 3 managers in 15 years. Look at the guys he's developed over the years. Sale, Quintana, Kanhle, Thornton, Buerhle, Garland, Bobby Jenks, Addison Reed, John Danks, Gavin Floyd to name a few. Maybe aside from Sale, who everyone said would never be able to be a consistent starter, none of those guys were really highly touted. From 2003-2012, White Sox pitchers were never worse than 5th in WAR and in that same span, their starters were never worse than 3rd in IP. Guys trying to rebound their careers constantly sign with the White Sox to work with Coop. He's an absolute master at his craft and still one of the best in the league.

Agree0 Disagree1

26 Oct 2017 19:03:31
White Sox Team ERA: under Cooper
2017: 4.78
2016: 4.10
2015: 3.98
2014: 4.29
2013: 3.98
2012: 4.02
2011: 4.10
2010: 4.09
2009: 4.14
2008: 4.06-the last year they made the playoffs
2007: 4.77
2006: 4.61
2005: 3.61- won the world series
2004: 4.91
2003: 4.17
2002: 4.53- Cooper's first season as pitching coach.
Explain to me again how a team that regular finishes with 4-5 runs given up a game in a season has not changed pitching coaches.
I will give you some slack for mentioning Sale and Qunintana, both are good pitchers. Same with Kahnle. John Danks career with the White Sox 79-104, ERA 4.38. 3 totals season with a winning record in 10 seasons. Bobby Jenks fell apart and hasn't pitched since 2011. He can't fix James Shields, couldn't fix Clippard in the short time he was there. Gavin Floyd in 7 seasons with them 63-65, 4.22 ERA. I am not disagreeing with you on them having a good system, they do, the best, i don't think so. It was baron before those trades, and after all they acquired it still isn't that plentiful. I could be wrong, but you need to stop acting like that everyone will pan out.

Agree2 Disagree0

26 Oct 2017 19:51:19
Pitching staffs are 3rd in overall WAR with Cooper as the pitching coach, so he's actually been pretty good.

But, when you dig into the numbers:

2017 was really bad, and it showed how much Sale and Quintana carried that pitching staff. They were 2nd to last in pitching WAR this year. Sans Sale and Quintana (amongst others) they were only slightly better in 2016 (5.6 WAR for all non-Sale/ Q guys) .

Much of Cooper's success has come from 3-4 pitchers (Sale, Quintana, Buehrle, Vazquez) . Beyond those guys, it's been relatively thin.

And I'm not sure it's a development issue, either. As Sale, Q, and Buehrle were all elite pitchers, you'd have many organizations that could have developed them into superstars.

So I'm torn on Cooper's success. On one hand, he's had very good pitchers. On the other, that success is tied into about 4-6 pitchers and it bottomed out very quick.

Agree1 Disagree0

26 Oct 2017 21:10:25
And that is the real point i've been trying to make. The WAR for the pitching isn't that bad, but he's only been able to hone in on a few pitchers. Pelfrey, Holland, Edwin Jackson, James Shields, Matt Latos, Samardizja, and Liriano are all examples of guys who signed or were traded there and did not rebound there career their. Liriano was able to rebound in Pittsburgh were pitchers actually rebound their careers.

Agree0 Disagree0

26 Oct 2017 23:59:24
Yeah, the whole "rebound their career" statement was silly.

I guess the question is who. Maybe Miguel Gonzalez? But yeah, recent "rebound projects" have bee really, really bad in Chicago.

Chi Sox is the king of awful takes. They get funnier and bolder by the day.

Agree1 Disagree1

27 Oct 2017 00:45:40
Ray Searage is another one of the best in the league.

Agree0 Disagree0

27 Oct 2017 07:00:39
For those ERAs, he wasn't always given the best guys to work with. Now, I'm not saying that every team has been a success or even every player he's worked with. 2015 being a good example of failure. In 2017, yeah the ERA was 4.78, but look at our rotation for most of the season. Mike Pelfrey made 21 STARTS! You had guys like guys like Chris Volstad and David Holmberg starting games. The Chris Becks and Dylan Coveys of the world in the bullpen. For the most part, the front office was trying to lose games.

When you look at the Career #s of Danks and Floyd, they aren't that impressive. But you have to know the context. Danks was acquired from Texas and gave the Sox 4 really good years 2008-2011. He's a big reason why we even made the playoffs in 2008 because he shut down the Twins in the blackout tie-breaker game in '08. Then injuries derailed his career. He lost his fastball and could never find a good way to pitch without it. Floyd was a top prospect of the Phillies that came up and sucked so they gave up on him. He comes to Chicago and wins 17 games in 08 and then he was at least a solid starting pitcher for 5 seasons. He had a 4.0 WAR in 2009 and 2010.

He hasn't been able to fix Shields, but my God, could anyone fix all of that? The guys is just awful now. And he absolutely fixed Clippard. He had a 1.80 ERA and 10.8 Ks/ 9 with the White Sox. That's like vintage Clippard. His stay was short, but that was the goal all along. They got a team (Houston) to pay the rest of his $ while getting more $$ in return.

Buehrle was a 38th round pick from Jefferson College (!?!? ) and the Yankees just released Quintana after he was originally signed for like 50K out of Columbia. Sale, yes probably would have been fantastic with other clubs, But I think Cooper deserves a ton of credit for Quintana and especially Buehrle. He's had SOME good pitchers, but doesn't he get some credit as to how they became good MLB pitchers? Most of them didn't come in as top prospects (like they are now) . Heck, I remember everyone freaking out because guys like Keith Law and Callis were saying Sale would wind up as a lefty specialist out of the bullpen because there was no way anyone could keep him healthy with his mechanics.

As for the prospects. I mean come on. The Sox don't have a plentiful system? I really never said they would all pan out, they all obviously won't. I'm talking about the grades that all these prospect ranking sites give their prospects. Who can you legitimately say has a better system than them currently? I really don't care if the Yankees or Braves have better "25-30 ranked" prospects than the Sox because very rarely do those guys come up or more importantly, come up and make an impact. They at one point this season had 3 top 10 prospects. TOP 10! And as statbook knows all too well, I think Luis Robert has a good chance to be top 10 by the end of 2018. They still have 6 top 100s with 3 graduating in 2017 and 4 guys who I could easily see breaking into the top 100 by seasons end (Collins, Fulmer, Dunning, Burger) .

Agree0 Disagree2

27 Oct 2017 07:59:20
We could give you answers, but unless the answer is “the White Sox”, you won’t even accept it.

So why waste our time?

Agree3 Disagree1

27 Oct 2017 16:07:03
If you can give me answers with solid evidence, I'll gladly accept it. The key part is having good evidence or justification for dissenting opinions.

Agree0 Disagree3

27 Oct 2017 17:20:15
Ok here you are trying to justify why they had a bad ERA this past season. You are saying because of the pitchers they were given they did horrible, ok isn't that also the fault of the pitching coach too? by your logic he should have been able to fix Pelfrey to be the pitcher he was early on with them Mets or at least a fraction of it. Danks may have had injury problems, but he could have rebounded. And you have contradicted yourself when you said he couldn't rebound and regain his fastball. Cooper could/ should have been able to help him. Floyd you said was a top prospect in the Phillies system. This true, but this also proves my point about not all prospects panning out. Cooper has had some success with pitchers, but those are few and far between. They are outnumbered by alot. For Shields I could think that his Rays pitching Coach, Jim Hickey could fix him, Ray Searage, Juan Nieves, if Dave Duncan was still coaching he could probably do so.

Agree1 Disagree0

27 Oct 2017 18:34:51
Statbook, so with Kahnle, Floyd, Danks, Matt Albers, Junior Guerra, Jesse Crain, Quintana, Miguel Gonzalez, Phil Humber, Matt Thornton, Edwin Jackson, J. J. Putz, Greg Infante, Dustin Hermanson, Cliff Polite, Damaso Marte, etc., none of those guys rebounded their careers with Cooper? Call my takes "bad", but you're just flat out wrong here. I've never seen more irony than with you saying I'M the king of bad takes! hahaha

I'm not saying he has a 100% success rate, that's unreasonable. If a pitching coach can have roughly a 50% success rate, that's pretty good.


"You are saying because of the pitchers they were given they did horrible, ok isn't that also the fault of the pitching coach too? "

No, last time I checked, the pitching coach doesn't form the rosters. No one was trying to fix Pelfrey, he was merely brought in after spring training to be an innings eater on a bad team. With injuries and natural aging, some pitchers simply become not talented enough to be major league pitchers. Or some are never talented enough to even be there in the first place. Wonder why Danks is out of the league now and not working with one of those other pitching coaches you pointed out? Because he realized he was done. Again, if you think Coop hasn't had success in rebounding guys, show me other pitching coaches and give me names of guys that they've helped turn their careers around. Sometimes too, it's not always about if they actually found success after coming to the White Sox, it's guys like Holland that came, turning down more money, to come work with Cooper based on his exceptional reputation around the league.

I also never said all the Sox prospects would turn out good anyway. Is it reasonable to say that 5 or 6 of players out of 13 that were recently top 100 will pan out? I'd also say that's a safe bet.

Finally, if Shields wasn't on a team trying to lose games and wasn't owed $10MM next year, he would have been cut months ago. No one can fix that. Trust me, I've watched way too many of his starts recently. He is just not a good pitcher.

Agree0 Disagree2

27 Oct 2017 19:45:14
-Phil Humber had a 5.34 ERA with Chicago.
-Albers had a 6.41 ERA in his second year (where a career "rebound" would be more obvious. ) That was good for a -2.0 WAR. He was a serviceable reliever until he went to Chicago.
-Junior Guerra pitched four innings for the White Sox, FOUR. His "rebound" was with Milwaukee, and even that didn't last.
-J. J. Putz had a 3.07 career ERA before his season in Chicago, and posted only a slightly better one there.
-John Danks got progressively worse every year at Chicago.
-Edwin Jackson was a year removed for a 4-Win season when he went to Chicago and it took him two seasons there to match his one from Detroit.

Did you even look at the numbers, or just list a bunch of pitchers Don Cooper coached over the years? Phil Humber was objectively horrible for 2 straight years, one of them being as a White Sox. His career was every but "rebounded" during his time there. He had 1 good year there. We don't qualify that as a "rebound".

About 2 or 3 on that whole list actually had "rebounded" their careers under Cooper (and one of them I already mentioned) .

I actually thought you wouldn't be ridiculous enough to cite Phil Humber as having his career "rebounded", and you went there.

Absolutely hilarious.

Agree4 Disagree1

27 Oct 2017 20:13:30
Also, that whole thing of Derek Holland turning down more money to work with Cooper, how'd that work out for him?

Highest ERA of his career, highest walk rate, highest FIP, doubled his HRs given up from the year prior, lowest WAR total, almost 2 full ticks off his velocity, and his FB rating went from -0.8 to -24.0 IN ONE YEAR! Every one of his pitches got worse.

I don't know what kind of offers Derek Holland had on the table when he signed last December. But if he actually turned down money to go to Chicago and be an innings eater, he's a moron. He'll be getting a minor-league deal this winter, thanks to Cooper. (But let me guess, it's totally not Cooper's fault. He only takes credit when it works out well for him? )

It's a miracle what he did: he took a mediocre starting pitcher and turned him into a terrible starting pitcher. What a coach.

Look, I know there will be cases where a guy will fail. And I don't fault Cooper for all of those. But the point is: if you want to credit him with every guy who got remotely better because he was in White Sox jersey (often for things Cooper had almost no role in), then we have to equally discredit him for every guy who got significantly worse in White Sox jersey.

This doesn't make him a terrible coach, it makes him human. But propping him up as this guy who saves everyone's career (and then giving me borderline-wrong, or in some cases, completely wrong examples) is a pretty ridiculous take. He's helped a few pitchers over the years get better. That applies to literally every pitching coach in baseball. Congrats, you have a professional pitching coach.

Agree4 Disagree1

27 Oct 2017 20:39:50
Cliff Politte, another "rebounded" player was let go mid-season in 2006 and pitched a total of 17 IP in the minors before giving up baseball.

Citing him a "rebound project" is comical. He didn't rebound his career in Chicago. He never played again after being beyond terrible in 2006.

He was 1.9 WAR guy coming into Chicago, he left Chicago accumulating 0.8 WAR. He was twice as good elsewhere than he was in Chicago.

How'd I know you were going to give us a bunch of garbage players and try to pass them off? A simple look at their career numbers suggests guys like Humber and Politte were not good. Yet you cited them as "rebounding their careers" under Cooper. No, they had a good season.

Agree3 Disagree1

28 Oct 2017 03:05:07
This started from the claim from Batman that Don Cooper was a terrible pitching coach. Do you think he's awful and he should definatly be fired? If not, you should remember who you are disagreeing with. Until you guys can show me a pitching coach that has a better reputation for getting good innings out of guys after they struggled, I will stand by my notion that Don Cooper is one of the best in the league. Those WAR and IP stats posted earlier don't lie either. You say he had just a few good pitchers that carried him, but when you develop really good pitchers, yes they will pitcher a lot and attribute to wins, obviously.

I didn't have to look at the numbers for those other pitchers. I know/ remember when they brought in pitchers that had really good stetches like Polite and Hermanson being pivitol in 2005 and Humber having a great run of a couple months that included a perfect game. The only context you have is looking at their final numbers season by season on Fangraphs. I was never saying he "saved" all of them and then they all became all-stars. I know they got good innings out of all those guys because I watched them do it, just like you watched Bochy put fast guys at the top of the order while he didn't care about OBP.

"But the point is: if you want to credit him with every guy who got remotely better because he was in White Sox jersey (often for things Cooper had almost no role in) "

Right, you know exactly what role Don Cooper had in the development of all of his pitchers. You're hilarious. This is where you clearly show you know slim to none about the actual game of baseball outside of numbers you find on fangraphs. It's not always seeing the numbers while in a Sox uniform either or numbers at all. Guys have literally talked about how Coop did wonders for them. When Guerra was in Milwaukee and people asked him about his breakout year, they showed his interview on a White Sox broadcast where he literally said how he credits Don Cooper for making him focus on staying over his front leg to get more tilt on his offspeed pitches and it also gave him much better command. This is what I mean about knowing the context.

And keep posting Holland's numbers as if he was a good pitcher that Coop just couldn't figure out. The guy can't pitch at the major league level. If you have a 6.00 ERA, trust me, it's not because of what the pitching coach told you. You just don't have ML stuff to even be remotely close to getting hitters out.

People around the league rave about him. Guys that pitch for him, previous pitchers, other coaches/ managers. Here's a quote for you from a guy he helped in Felipe Paulino:
"As soon as I signed here, in November, " says Paulino, "I got a few friends who called me, like Freddy Garcia, who played here, told me about Cooper, told me good things -- that he's a great pitching coach and I'm in good hands. I'm in good hands, so just follow this guy. And I'm going to. "

He's a master at a his craft. They say he's a master at molding the strengths of pitchers, so when a guy like Holland comes in with no stengths, it could be hard for anyone to work with. Prove me wrong with someone that's better.

Agree0 Disagree1

28 Oct 2017 04:36:10
The only good thing Humber did in a White Sox uniform was pitch a no hitter, that's it. Polite, who i had never heard of, had one good season with the White Sox out of three. Miguel Gonzalez was much better when he was in Baltimroe, so he shouldn't even be on your list as someone who rebounded. I suppose you want to name Scott Downs as well huh, oh wait he doesn't fit your examples because he absolutely sucked with the White Sox. Of course the pitching coach isn't in charge of forming the team. He is in charge of the pitching staff. They are responsible for making sure the pitchers are ready and find any troubles they maybe having. Isn't this something you tried telling me earlier. That is what makes a pitching coach good. Dave Eiland got fired from the Yankees because he couldn't fix one guy: AJ Burnett.

Agree1 Disagree0

28 Oct 2017 05:16:59
"Right, you know exactly what role Don Cooper had in the development of all of his pitchers. You're hilarious. "

No. I know that often, pitching coaches don't have as much influence in their pitcher's performance as it seems. Tim Lincecum's dad was his "coach". Jake Peavy used a trainer in the offseason who he credits for his success. Many pitchers (and hitters) do the same. So much of the success (and failure) of players across the game aren't exactly due to the pitching coach.

I don't know what influence these coaches actually have, and likely, you don't either.

Cooper is a well-respected pitching coach. I've accepted that. I really don't care if your opinion is he's the best ever or worst ever, but you cited several guys who's careers were "rebounded" when it full well isn't the case.

Players having a few good months doesn't constitute a rebounded career, or even a season. It means they are professional ballplayers who had enough skill to get to the majors in the first place. A rebounded career is like we saw out of J. A. Happ in Pittsburgh, or maybe even Jhoulys Chacin in San Diego this year. It isn't a few good months followed by really, really bad ones.

I'm not interested in "were they pivotal to a season for the White Sox", because that wasn't the scope of the discussion. Quit moving the goalposts. It was the idea that Cooper has turned all of these bums into studs. It really hasn't happened at high levels, as you're proposing. Again, Politte and Humber's careers were effectively over (not by age, mind you) after they bottomed out in Chicago. Other guys had similar stories.

But others did, in fact, benefit greatly from Don Cooper. It'd be silly to say he's a terrible pitching coach. He's very good, and his tenure with the same team is evidence.

Agree1 Disagree0

28 Oct 2017 05:26:39
Biggest point is this:

You can make a statement and not be ridiculous about it. If you'd have just said, "Cooper is a very good pitching coach and players have come out of the woodwork to express their gratitude for his work. " No one can argue that.

But you can't just make a point. You have to take it to such ridiculous lengths, like saying he rebounded the careers of guys like Phil Humber and Cliff Politte. That is not only wrong, it's a beyond laughable suggestion that proves you'll say literally anything if it sounds good to you, even if you know it's wrong.

This is not a good quality and it leaves people at a point where no one can take you seriously. You're a smart kid, but you've lost any shred of credibility with your takes.

Before you post: stop and think about what you're saying. Maybe ask a friend who knows baseball to read it. Because some of what you post flies past ridiculous into the straight up hysterical. The irony is that you suggested that I'M like Skip Bayless.

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Oct 2017 07:37:05
How do you give evidence on an opinion? If it’s opinion, it’s subjective and immeasurable.

Prospect rankings are projections, and usually ranked by the players' best possible outcomes (ceilings) . It’s why teams like the Giants, or the White Sox pre-2017 weren’t considered "top farm systems" (never mind the Giants routinely having more homegrown talent, of which they won three championships). Their farm talent doesn’t have high ceilings, according to scouts.

This is a subjective topic. And your opinion on the White Sox' 11-20 (or top 10) guys holds no more weight than anyone else’s on this site. (Based on your hilariously crazy take and unabashed homerism, I might suggest they mean less).

Can you please quit thinking so highly of yourself and your OPINIONS. You don’t know everything and you make yourself look bad regularly on this site.

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Oct 2017 07:38:30
Another gem you threw in there:

Cliff Politte had a 4.52 ERA coming into Chicago. He had a 4.18 ERA in Chicago. After being released mid-season by the White Sox (you don't release good pitchers mid-season), he never pitched another inning in the majors. They did the exact opposite of "rebounding" his career. He threw 17 innings in the minors after his time with the White Sox. They literally destroyed his career in Chicago.

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Oct 2017 16:21:04
^^^Don't know why that posted again.

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Oct 2017 20:42:57
"But others did, in fact, benefit greatly from Don Cooper. It'd be silly to say he's a terrible pitching coach. He's very good, and his tenure with the same team is evidence. "

Thank You. This is the point I was making.

We could spend weeks debating on what exactly a rebounded season or career constitutes - How well do they have to pitch? How long do they have to sustain success? You personally don't care how good they were in a season, but as a Sox fan, yeah I do kind of care how well Polite did in '05. It helped win a world series. Humber never sustained sucess, but it was pretty awesome for him to throw a perfect game. You and many others don't care but that's why you aren't Sox fans. Could I have been more clear? Yes, especially with the amount of nit-picking that occurs on this site. I could nit-pick you and say "well Chacin has only had one pretty good year with San Diego, just like you said Polite only had one good year" But in reality, I would say yeah the pitching coach in SD probably had a pretty good part in Chacin "rebounding his career. " Those were guys that I listed off the top of my head that I remember Cooper helping out for at least part of a season after they were practically nothing, that helped the White Sox win ball games. I never said all those guys became studs. J. A. Happ is another good example and as I pointed out. Searage is really good too for similar reasons.

I also never said you need evidence for an opinion. I think usually people like you to have some justification for it, which if you read my previous post, is literally exactly what I said. Like Batman was saying he doesn't like most of the Sox prospects, that's fine, but saying things like "oh, Fulmer just sucks, or no way Collins can hit", it's hard to respect an opinion like that.

"I don't know what influence these coaches actually have, and likely, you don't either. " Although I'm not a pitcher, I have a pretty good idea of what these coaches do for guys and the difference in approach when a guys is really good and succeeding vs. a guy who is recently struggling or has even beeing struggling for a while.

"your opinion on the White Sox' 11-20 (or top 10) guys holds no more weight than anyone else’s on this site. " I'd love to be proved wrong here, but I think it's safe to say I probably have more knowledge on White Sox prospects than anyone I have read on this site. I'm not high on all the top guys either. I have pretty strong opinions on guys who I think won't ever turn out.

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Oct 2017 23:27:12
It's not hard to create a standard for a rebounded career: were they good for a reasonable time after their "rebound season? " Rebound season meaning the time they were really, really good after years of being mediocre or bad.

If a guy never plays again after he leaves Chicago, it is safe to assume he never rebounded his career.

If a guy was genuinely and objectively bad after his time in Chicago, it's safe to say his career never rebounded.

Agree0 Disagree1

29 Oct 2017 02:59:06
I would say in general if a guy goes from being really bad to even just serviceable, that's a rebounded career. But that's just me. Every case is different too and context matters.

Agree0 Disagree4

01 Nov 2017 15:30:53
"if a guy goes from being really bad to even just serviceable, that's a rebounded career. "

So, if he was terrible before, had two good months, and then is terrible again, you're saying that's a rebounded career?

A rebounded career is generally justified by sustained success beyond a couple of months. J. A. Happ is a prime example of a rebounded career. A. J. Burnett's stint in Pittsburgh is another. They were great in Pittsburgh and continued to be great. Humber was good for a few months and became Philip Humber again.

If you want to use sentimental value, as you did—twice, that doesn't constitute rebounded success either. That Humber threw a perfect game shows that bad pitchers throw great games every once in a while. It also shows there's a great deal of luck involved in throwing one (a 72% fly ball rate that game, that's getting pretty lucky) .

I don't care what he meant to you, or if Politte "helped" win a WS (I'd contend any RP on a major league roster could have done the same) doesn't mean their careers were "rebounded". It means they had times in their careers where they were good. You probably won't stay in the majors very long if you don't have that quality. Coincidentally, neither of the two lasted much longer after their "rebound", which makes you wonder if it really ever happened.

You don't get to redefine terms simply because the term doesn't fit your argument.

Agree1 Disagree0

02 Nov 2017 22:45:26
"You don't get to redefine terms "

A "rebounded career" is very subjective. It's also not really a term. Try to push your superiority complex aside for a minute and realize that you don't get to suddenly deem what its exact definition is.

I'm not really concerned with if you care about Cliff Politte. All I'm saying is that Cooper did something for him that allowed him to have one great year which was a year in which he was an integral piece to a WS championship team. As a White Sox fan, I personally deem that as a rebound. If you don't, it makes sense because 1. you didn't watch him pitch that year and 2. you could care less about the White Sox and their success.

Finally, no one cares about Phil Humber's fly ball rate in a perfect game. It's a perfect game, you have to execute to a pretty high extent. He was unbelievably efficient. You can't just read your statcast glossary and apply every advanced metric to every situation. I wonder what the avg. exit velo was or avg. launch angle was in that game? A fly ball can be a very productive/ efficient out. I'll take first pitch fly outs all day. But then again, that comes down to knowing the actual GAME of baseball, which you have yet to show any knowledge of. You are literally the nit-picking king. It's like explaining to a life-long Dodgers fan that Kirk Gibson's HR was a fluke. Good luck.

Agree0 Disagree0

03 Nov 2017 13:13:24
Haha, I used to think your being obtuse was an act. Now I realize, you really are this obtuse.

1. Rebounded career is "subjective" but it's subjective in the way of saying "Michael Jordan was a great basketball player" is subjective. Obviously there's no "right" answer, but there's still a reasonable amount of answers. Your definition of half those guys would not be considered a rebound by most folks.

2. I used the fly ball rate to explain that there's a good bit of luck involved in his perfect game. His fly-ball rate was really high for what we've seen in a perfect game. That's all I stated. The point of it was: using a perfect game as the litmus for a good pitcher, or rebounded season, is like saying David Ross was this unbelievable catcher in 2016 because he hit a HR in Game 7.

3. The nit-picking king? You insisted on arguing with me because I put Billy Hamilton at the #1 spot, instead of the #7. GTFO with that nonsense. (Also, see your diatribe about my "luck" statement above. )

4. I know nothing about the ACTUAL game of baseball? So my advanced (and superior to yours) knowledge on stats means I know nothing about the game? You realize the Astros and Dodgers made it to the WS because they hired stat-nerds, and avoided hiring a bunch of guys who played Little League who think they are experts because they played once.

Advanced metrics is currency of baseball today. If you don't understand them (which you've routinely proven you don't), then I'd recommend you drop the act. No one buys it.

Agree2 Disagree1

03 Nov 2017 22:33:48
1. Here you are, subjectively trying to define a topic that we've agreed is subjective. Unbelievable.

2. I never said Humber was a good career pitcher, nor did I imply that his perfect game was a litmus for that. Humber holds value to the White Sox and their fans. We don't care if you consider his perfect game being any sort of rebound or not. David Ross is a great example of my point. David Ross is a .220 career hitting backup catcher, but to Cub fans he'll always be a hero.

3. I commented on Hamilton hitting leadoff because that was your basis for why the Reds would trade him, "his OBP isn't doing him any favors" or something along those lines. Then you put him at the top of a lineup of a team we assume is trying to contend and your rationale is that "oh I really know Bochy. " Ok, well one thing we've learned in 150 years playing this game is that you put guys that get on base at the top of the lineup. That's not nit-picking, that's a fundamental principle of baseball.

4. You know the definition and how to read these advanced metrics, but you have little to no idea on how to properly apply them contextually. To properly do this, you have to know the intricacies of the game that you don't pick up when you stop playing after little league. Again we see your glaring superiority complex shine through because you're absolutely certain you know more about metrics or the game itself than anyone else. For instance, you knew what a pitcher's single-game fly ball rate was based on what is deemed "good" by statcast's general grids, but you don't understand that a fly ball can be a very productive/ efficient out. If you go back to the game, he generated a ton of soft contact. You can learn a lot about the game from the advanced metrics, but you can't say "for what we've seen in a perfect game" when Humber is 1 of 23 men to ever do it. It's foolish to try and generalize those starts and attribute one of the most exciting occurrences in baseball to luck.

To use your example of the Astros, Hinch literally said that the game is a mixture of both old school and new school philosophies, which is true. Look at how he managed game 7. He did not play the percentages at all. Advanced metrics is part of the currency of the game, but it is not the sole currency. Also, to say that the Astros and Dodgers being in the world series had nothing to do with old-school scouting is plain wrong. There is definitely a place for the stat nerds, but the game is not lost on the scouts who can see things that numbers can't measure.

Agree0 Disagree0

05 Nov 2017 13:41:16
I'm going to skip to #4, since the others are mindless arguments I'm done with.

I absolutely know how to apply them contextually. Of course I know that a fly ball can be an effective out. I also recognize that throwing them at a rate of 72% is extremely rare, and most likely involves a good deal of luck, as any perfect game would. You're talking about a guy who allowed very low rates of soft contact. In 2012, almost 87% of all batted balls were hard or medium contact. Producing a game where 72% of your outs are on fly balls, and soft enough to be outs (or worse yet, relying on defense behind you) is most likely lucky. I could be wrong on that, but I think most with an understanding of the game and metrics would agree: it was pretty lucky.

I know what launch angle is, anyone who follows baseball knows that. But what you fail to understand is that. if those things are occurring, we'll see it in the bottom line. If a player is working on launch angle, or spin rate to reduce hard contact, or increase velocity, or whatever principle it is they are currently working on, if it's working, we'll see it in the final stat line. If, for example, Avisail Garcia is working on launch angle mixed with his exit velocity, we'll see more home runs.

Metrics and analytics are two steps ahead. They already understand the principles you keep mentioning. Fly Balls are why we use xFIP instead of just FIP.

Also, I've never claimed to know about metrics "more than anyone else. " I've just claimed to know them more than YOU. And quite frankly, I can argue the opposite, you understand how the game is played, but you have no idea how to critically analyze a player's performance. You know nothing of advanced metrics, how they are measured, or even what factors are considered in them. Again, if you had any clue about xFIP, you'd know that fly ball rate was already considered, thus, you wouldn't accuse anyone of not knowing the intricacies of the game.

We're all well aware that fly balls are effective out. We're all well aware that you should put OBP guys at the top of the order (and should be aware that not all teams do it) . We're all aware that teams are preaching launch angle and exit velocity. You literally know about the game as much as almost anyone on this page.

You're like an algebra student debating a calculus student. You understand basic principles, and think that my not mentioning them means I don't. No, I just have more information and a better metric to measure those exact things.

Agree1 Disagree1

05 Nov 2017 16:37:00
To set the record straight, I know just as much about advanced metrics as you. It's not rocket science. Like 10% of it is knowing what the stat is/ what it measures and the other 90% is knowing how to use it and in what scenarios it supports a claim. I just don't need to throw out new measures that I hope no one else knows about so my points can't be challenged. What's been unfortunate for you in this process is that I know about advanced metrics as well.

A high fly ball rate is a measure you use over a longer period of time (a couple weeks, a month, or a whole season) . You can't call a good start (much less a perfect game) lucky because of a 72% fly ball rate. It's not sustainable over a longer period of time which is why it's a good measure for those time periods. What you need to understand is pitchers literally throw pitches where the optimal outcome is generating a weak fly ball (low exit velo, elevated launch angle) 1. Bc it's much easier to field than a ground ball and 2. because is usually very efficient. You can get very lucky in a start where you generate a ton of hard hit fly balls that your outfielders are diving for or catching on the warning track, but I'm saying that in that start at Safeco, Humber was executing. This is what I'm talking about - proper application of the metrics in appropriate scenarios. Yes, FIP and xFIP are two great new stats that are much better than ERA, but you don't compare pitchers xFIPs (or Fly ball rates) based on 1 start.

And everyone has the same numbers to look at, you don't have "more information", nor a "better metric. " You're acting like you invented them.

And to fix your analogy for you, you're the hot head college freshman calculus student that thinks they're coming in knowing everything, and I'm the Calc professor who is schooling you on the actual applications of these studies while simultaneously putting you in your place.

Agree0 Disagree2

06 Nov 2017 08:00:02
Please, don't flatter yourself. You're way too obtuse to be a professor in anything other than how to BS people and pat your own back.

I really don't care what you think you know. If you think you're an expert on analytics, put your money where your mouth is. You know how baseball works. Good for you. You're on par with literally everyone on this site. Please quit with the "I know the intricacies of baseball". You've cited some concepts that we all know. This doesn't make you an expert.

You also seem way to obtuse to understand nuance. You're taking this Humber argument way too seriously and you're missing the overall point: whether it's luck, or whether it was a good start (subjective), it doesn't suggest, in any way, that Humber had a "rebounded career". Bad pitchers have good games. It's so easy to draw you in with mindless details. You argued with me about OBP at the top of the lineup (I actually agreed with you that it's a good principle, and explicitly stated so), or that knowing certain metrics (i. e. xFIP) means we already know certain things (i. e. how effective a fly ball out is) . Instead, you argued about how xFIP is measured over a certain period of time (not the argument I made) . You can't see the nuance of an argument, and it's why we have to come full circle about 16 times before you finally understand what anyone says. Just read through these debates: people have to repeat themselves multiple times before you come to understand.

And I have to laugh at your scolding me for my supposed "superiority complex" and then you trying to "put me in my place. " You'd argue with someone saying the sun rises in the east if it means you can argue with it. And it's so easy to bait you into a mindless argument. All I have to do is say an unflattering comment about the White Sox, or disagree with you, and I get to have fun at your expense for the next week or so.

Let's be honest: you know nothing about me. And if you did, you would never accuse me of not knowing analytics or anything about the game of baseball. Your doing so is a a desperate pot shot to try and prove you're right. It doesn't. Your ad hominem attacks don't make you more right. Please take a logic course.

You want to prove me wrong? Bring up some stats and justify your argument. Metrics and stats are how we evaluate players. It's the only effective means to evaluate players, and every team in baseball is working on creating better, more effective proprietary metrics because it's the only way to measure player performance. In light of that, the only way I believe we can argue is through stats and metrics. That a guy is practicing launch angle is not an argument. It's what EVERYONE is practicing. Bring up some actual stats to show IT'S WORKING. That's the only way we can argue. You don't need to be an expert in the intricacies of baseball to know how BABIP regression works, or how a player with one good game (lucky or not) isn't suddenly a great pitcher with a turned-around career.

Want to show you're the professor? Put up some stats or shut your damn mouth. You look like a fool.

Agree5 Disagree1

06 Nov 2017 23:30:14
Triggered.

Agree2 Disagree5

18 Nov 2017 13:02:50
WOW, I step away from this site for like 4 months and miss an actual white-sox conversation!

Admittedly I scanned the second half of this conversation bc let's be real, this was a damn novel. (Also didn't see the original argument this stemmed from)

But some thoughts:

1) The Whitesox currently have an elite farm system and yes it is deep.

2) "Fulmer is garbage" is a little bit theatric. His small sample size in the MLB shows some promise, but long term I think he's a really good reliever.

3) "Collins can't hit"- By simply checking stats you're right, but they pretty much started to restructure his swing in the second half this year and he continues to be an on-base machine. The guy probably isn't coming up for a few years so I'm not going to judge his growth by BA quite yet.

4) My two favorite franchises are owned by Jerry Reinsdorf. Calling him a "foolish old man" is truly accurate and is probably an understatement.

5) While I don't think were getting Machado, It's pretty well known jerry loves the Whitesox more than the Bulls and has said he'll get "another one" before his time is up. Yes I know he's been cheap in the past but I wouldn't be surprised if he emptied the pocket books a bit more than usual once we start competing again.

7) Saw something about Don Cooper, C'mon man judging him by team ERA doesn't show the entire picture. That dude is literally the reason we have a ring in 05 and has made the likes of Garbage pitchers into average. He's probably the best asset we have in our organization right now (not kidding) .

Once again not even sure what this argument is about but thought I'd jump in without reading context because its the internet and I'm bored at work.

Agree0 Disagree2

15 Oct 2017 21:00:29
If any who do you guys think the Royals can resign?

Agree1 Disagree1

17 Oct 2017 01:43:00
Escobar and Vargas.

Agree3 Disagree1

31 Oct 2017 04:02:05
Yeah that would probably be my guess too.

Agree0 Disagree0

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

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

Rotation:
Noah Syndergaard
Michael Kopech
Alec Hansen
Lucas Giolito
Carlos Rodon

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

Agree4 Disagree5

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

Agree5 Disagree1

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

Agree0 Disagree5

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

Agree5 Disagree0

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

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

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

Agree4 Disagree1

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

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

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

Agree0 Disagree3

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

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

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

Agree3 Disagree1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree1 Disagree1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree1 Disagree0

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

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

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

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

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

Agree2 Disagree2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree3 Disagree0

19 Oct 2017 23:50:43
One last one:

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

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

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

Agree4 Disagree0

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

Agree4 Disagree0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree1 Disagree3

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

What theStatbook has taught us:

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

Agree2 Disagree4

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

Dodgers: Buehler, Verdugo, and Alvarez.

Nationals: Robles, Taylor, Fedde, and Kieboom.

Yankees: Torres, Adams, Florial

Braves: Acuna, Wright, Gohara

Indians: Mejia, McKenzie, Bradley

Rockies: Rodgers, Pint, McMahon

Brewers: Villar, Woodruff, Ortiz, Ray

Phillies: Moniak, Sanchez, Kingery

Cardinals: Reyes, Kelly, Flaherty

Reds: Senzel, Greene, Mahle

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

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

Agree2 Disagree1

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

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

Agree1 Disagree0

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

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

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

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

Syndergaard is a combination of all three things teams value.

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

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

Agree0 Disagree1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree0 Disagree2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree0 Disagree0

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

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

Agree1 Disagree1

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

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

Agree0 Disagree1

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

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

Good luck dude.

Agree0 Disagree1

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

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

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

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

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

Agree0 Disagree1

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

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

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

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

Maybe you could do the same.

Agree0 Disagree0

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

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

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

Agree0 Disagree1

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

Agree0 Disagree0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree0 Disagree0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree0 Disagree0

25 Oct 2017 03:22:37
One final comment:

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

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

Agree0 Disagree0

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

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

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

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

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

Agree0 Disagree1

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

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

Agree0 Disagree0

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

Agree2 Disagree0

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

Agree1 Disagree1

05 Oct 2017 20:12:06
Lets talk about the Post season. Who wins each series? My predictions


Red Sox vs Astros - Red Sox in 5

Yankees vs Indians - Indians in 4

Diamondbacks vs Dodgers - Diamondbacks in 5

Cubs vs Nationals - Cubs in 4



Red Sox vs Indians - Indians in 5

Diamondbacks vs Cubs - Diamondbacks in 6


Diamondbacks vs Indians - Indians in 7.

Agree0 Disagree3

06 Oct 2017 14:10:56
I actually like the D'Backs pick. The NL is pretty much wide open.

Agree0 Disagree3

03 Sep 2017 22:48:15
Hey guys how are you doing today

I will be overlooking the trade deadline deals from July /September

Give the trades a 1/10 rate and who won the deal and will be talking about prospects in the deals as well

Eloy jimenez bryant fleete dylan cease

Agree0 Disagree5

15 Sep 2017 17:48:05
If I understand correctly you're planning on assessing who won each trade and you're starting with the Q deal?

The "winner" of this deal isn't going to be known for at least a few years. Quintana is on a lengthy contract and neither Jimenez nor Cease are likely going to be called up until 2019.

Agree1 Disagree0

14 Oct 2017 04:32:12
Jimenez will be up July 2018.

Agree1 Disagree2

 

MLB Talk 2


MLB Talk 3


MLB Talk 4

 
Log In or Register to post

User
Pass
Remember me

Forgot Pass