MLB Trade Rumors

 

Use our rumors form to send us mlb trade rumors.

(single word yields best result)

This page last updated: 19:29:49

The sent in rumors have been split into 2 pages. The MLB Talk page is the other page.

15 Jan 2023 04:33:09
Twins/Marlins

Twins Get:
Pablo Lopez RHP

Marlins Get:
Luis Arraez 1B/2B
Max Kepler OF
Marco Raya RHP

Believable1 Unbelievable1

02 Jan 2023 15:34:36
3-Teamer: Yankees, White Sox, A's

Yankees Get:
Seth Brown OF/1B
Joe Kelly RHP


White Sox Get:
Gleyber Torres 2B

A's Get:
Lenyn Sosa 2B/SS
Jonathan Cannon RHP

I think every team fits a need. The Yankees have a ton of infielders, and moving Torres allows them to start LeMahieu at 2B, but that'll eventually be Volpe's spot that kicks DJLM to 3B and Donaldson to the bench. I think they still like Peraza at short, IKF's defensive ability remaining on he roster, and Cabrera's versatility - Torres is just the odd man out without many trade suitors at this point, honestly.

Joe Kelly had a solid 2022, but he's the kind of guy that Matt Blake excels with and I would be surprised to see a sub-3.00 FIP from him in NY. They also get Brown who has 4 years of control and the left-handed bat they need. Will also play a good LF and sets up a nice platoon with Hicks. They upgrade 2 needs without incurring any additional salary commitments for 2023 by selling a positional surplus.

The same can get said for the Sox - they're one of the few hopeful contenders with expendable bullpen depth and need a 2B.

From the A' standpoint, I'm not sure if they'd be open to trading their best current hitter, but at 30 years old, it seems like they shouldn't be shy about selling high here. Sosa has some real power potential and could be their everyday-2B as soon as this season. Cannon just pitched for Georgia in the SEC and should also be ready fairly quickly as a high-probability SP.

Thoughts?

Believable4 Unbelievable4

03 Jan 2023 16:33:57
I'd normally say the A's should shoot for higher, but they also just settled for Esteury Ruiz and middling prospects for Sean Murphy, so who knows what's going on there.

Based on the number of teams still seeking SS, I think the Yankees could also do better.

Agree0 Disagree0

03 Jan 2023 22:35:14
Gleyber Torres, Shortstop? I don't think that's a great idea for the acquiring team, even if Cashman promises he can do it (just not for them) .

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Jan 2023 13:36:12
However Torres is billed, I think there'd be enough interest that the Yankees could do better than an expensive reliever who can't find the strike zone and Seth Brown (I admit, Brown is rather good) .

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Jan 2023 13:56:36
I'm also curious how a guy with -6 DRS and a 6th Percentile OAA classifies as "will play a good LF. "

Brown was objectively horrible defensively last season.

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Jan 2023 19:03:36
You got to look a little deeper - the details matter. Brown was above average as a LF last year (where the Yankees would play him), and has been +3 OAA in the outfield for his career.

Agree2 Disagree0

24 Jan 2023 19:24:21
The White Sox should probably ask for a pitcher now. You know, with Mike Clevinger being a scumbag and all.

The Sox really know how to pick them, don't they?

-A manager with multiple DUI arrests.
-A shortstop who assaults umpires.
-A pitcher who assaults women.

I'm gonna LOL so hard when Trevor Bauer is in a White Sox jersey this spring.

Agree0 Disagree0

20 Dec 2022 21:10:03
Pretty funny to see the whole Correa physical issue transpire - all of the rumors that Zaidi wasn't on board with the signing, but the Johnsons demanded it and did most of the negotiating with Boras. Now Zaidi's staff is leaking details about the failed physical - a mess.

Almost like Farhan is beholden to his owner(s) just like every other front office executive across the league.

Maybe he should just "be a man" and "earn respect" as a GM - at least that's what Natedog would tell him.

Believable5 Unbelievable10

21 Dec 2022 13:11:04
Wow! You know so much about a story that neither party has said ANYTHING about publicly! Please, enlighten us about your sources.

All we know is the Giants "flagged" a medical concern and Boras/ Correa didn't like it and went to the Mets. We don't know what the Giants said or who said it. We just know it was a medical issue.

And again, we're not even sure if the Giants were actually the party to back out completely.

Please, enlighten us on things literally none of the major reporters or local Giants reporters have said!

You're trying to make something up. Sad, sad look.

Agree6 Disagree2

21 Dec 2022 13:14:29
And if you think walking away from a player regarding a medical issue is the same as being on board with hiring a manager with MULTIPLE DUI ARRESTS, who ultimately eroded the morale of his own clubhouse which led to him "resigning" (read: fancy word for agreeing to be fired) midseason when his team couldn't even squeak out a playoff spot in one of the worst divisions top-to-bottom in baseball history.

if you think that's the same thing, then you're a deeply unserious person, not that we didn't already know that.

The Giants may have backed out of their largest FA deal ever due to a medical issue. At least they didn't hire a morally-deficient individual as a manager.

Agree5 Disagree2

21 Dec 2022 15:52:23
Just a brutal offseason for the Giants faithful so far. You go from getting "Arson Judge" & Carlos Correa to Mitch Haniger & probably like Jean Segura or something. Oof! Hate to see it.

Agree0 Disagree3

21 Dec 2022 18:05:54
Literally every indication is that the Giants ownership was the one that backed out from the deal, not the front office.

Seriously, you're just gonna pretend you didn't make something up, didn't you?

Agree3 Disagree0

21 Dec 2022 18:08:06
"Just a brutal offseason for the Giants faithful so far. You go from getting "Arson Judge" & Carlos Correa to Mitch Haniger & probably like Jean Segura or something. "

You're right, it could be worse. They could sign Andrew Benintendi to a $75M contract (LMAOOOOO) and Mike Clevinger, and probably trade their best reliever to make sure they can afford those moves.

Agree3 Disagree0

21 Dec 2022 19:49:41
Imagine signing Andrew Benintendi to a $75M deal and thinking someone else had a bad offseason.

He has no power, no speed, plays average defense, and when the .356 BABIP wears off (as it already did in his stint in NY), the White Sox are left with a more expensive version of Adam Engel.

I probably wouldn't go trashing anyone else's offseason LOL.

Agree2 Disagree0

21 Dec 2022 21:11:02
You trash Clevinger like the Giants didn't just commit more money to Sean Manaea who had a worse xRV than Clevinger in 2022.

You trash Benintendi like the Giants didn't just give Mitch Haniger, a guy that averaged 106 games per season with Seattle, an AAV that's only 500k less than Benintendi. Now he has to run around Oracle Park's outfield and not Seattle? Good luck with that.

The Giants had the worst defensive outfield in baseball in 2022 and yet are going to run with a Wade/ Yaz/ Haniger alignment in 2023. That's not very smart. Your projected leadoff hitter is Thairo Estrada and 5 hitter is literally Wilmer Flores (LMAOOOO) . Your bullpen ranks among the worst of any semi-serious contenders. Your best position player is a platooned DH. Your team lacks any kind of core. Seriously dude, save it.

This offseason has turned out to be an absolute disaster for the Giants, both for the 2023 and the future, and you're in denial. The Dbacks legitimately have much better future outlook than the Giants - you could be in danger of 4th place in 2023.

And here I was going to prove my point that it was Crawford moving to 3B and not Correa, and now Correa isn't even on the team.

That's actually hilarious.

Agree0 Disagree7

21 Dec 2022 22:40:55
"You trash Benintendi like the Giants didn't just give Mitch Haniger, a guy that averaged 106 games per season with Seattle, an AAV that's only 500k less than Benintendi"

I mean, this argument would make sense if Benintendi was the same type of hitter as Haniger. He's not.

The Giants didn't sign Haniger because he's a defensive wizard. They signed him because he hit 39 HR in 2021, and had a freak injury that cost him a lot of 2022.

The White Sox signed the weak-hitting, slow-footed, average defender in Benintendi because. well, I'm not sure why. They paid him the same AAV, but guaranteed him 32M more.

The Giants actually improved their outfield with Haniger. The White Sox got FAR WORSE, as they move Andrew Vaughn, who had a NEGATIVE fWAR in 2022 to a position with a greater positional hit on WAR.

Agree2 Disagree0

21 Dec 2022 22:51:02
"your projected leadoff hitter is Thairo Estrada and 5 hitter is literally Wilmer Flores (LMAOOOO) . "

Estrada in 2022:
106 wRC+, 14 HR, 21 SB. .722 OPS

White Sox leadoff hitter in 2022 (Anderson)
110 wRC+, 6 HR, 13 SB, .734 OPS

It's hardly that much worse than the White Sox LMAO.

Now, let's address Flores as the #5 hitter:

Flores in 2022:
103 wRC+, 19 HR, 71 RBI, .710 OPS

How about the current White Sox projected #5 hitter?
76 wRC+, 12 HR, 51 RBI, .626 OPS

That's Yoan Moncada.

Yes, your current projected #5 hitter hit LITERALLY HIT 76 wRC+ in 2022. That was tied for the 12th worst hitter (min. 400 PAs) in baseball last year.

It's hilarious that you didn't even bother looking this up before you posted it LOL.

Agree2 Disagree1

21 Dec 2022 23:03:46
Guys Thairo Estrada had a higher fWAR in 2022 than (he had 2.7 fWAR)

-Luis Robert (2.1)
-Tim Anderson (2.0)
-Eloy Jimenez (1.7)
-Yoan Moncada (0.9)
-Andrew Vaughn (-0.4)
-Yasmani Grandal (-0.4)
-Gavin Sheets (0.1)
-Romy Gonzalez (0.0)

The ONLY current starter for Chicago with a higher fWAR was Andrew Benintendi. His fWAR was 2.8, or 0.1 higher than Estrada's.

Mike Yastrzemski (2.2), Austin Slater (2.1) and Joc Pederson all fit the same bill. They all had higher fWARs than 8 of the White Sox' current projected starters last year.

And for what it's worth, Estrada's 2022 fWAR is higher than everyone's 2023 ZiPS projections except one: Robert (whose is 2.8 LOL) .

Seriously, you can't make this up.

It's yet again a cosmic tale of Chi Sox thinking he was doing something but couldn't be bothered to actually look up the stats.

Agree2 Disagree0

22 Dec 2022 01:00:15
Why don't you guys just get along. Lol.

Agree1 Disagree0

22 Dec 2022 05:53:54
"Guys Thairo Estrada had a higher fWAR in 2022 than (he had 2.7 fWAR)

-Luis Robert (2.1)
-Tim Anderson (2.0)
-Eloy Jimenez (1.7)
-Yoan Moncada (0.9)
-Andrew Vaughn (-0.4)
-Yasmani Grandal (-0.4)
-Gavin Sheets (0.1)
-Romy Gonzalez (0.0)"

Robert - Injured
Anderson - Injured
Jimenez - Injured
Moncada - Injured
Vaughn - Playing terribly out of position
Grandal - Injured

Yeah, let's just ignore blatantly obvious context.

It's funny because Flores had 170 more PAs than Moncada and Moncada literally had a 76 wRC+ and yet Flores was only a half-win better than him in 2023. It's no shock that Moncada is projected to be a full win better in 2023.

Speaking of projections, lets look at the 2 rosters currently with FanGraphs' DC.

Giants:
Lineup starting 9 - 15.7
Rotation - 11.2
Bullpen - 1.6
TOTAL = 28.5 fWAR

White Sox:
Lineup starting 9 - 22
Rotation - 10.5
Bullpen - 4.7
Total = 37.2 fWAR

Let's not act like the Giants' roster is anywhere near the White Sox right now.

On second thought, I'm not surprised you really like Estrada. You pretty much have to because his projected 2.6 wins are the most of any hitter and the third most on THE ENTIRE CLUB. LOLOLOL!

"The Giants actually improved their outfield with Haniger. The White Sox got FAR WORSE, as they move Andrew Vaughn, who had a NEGATIVE fWAR in 2022 to a position with a greater positional hit on WAR. "

So by moving one of the worst outfielders in baseball in 2022 to his natural 1B position, you're arguing that the club is actually WORSE off due to the positional adjustments of WAR? Boy, you really have an egregious lack of understanding here of how WAR works.

Vaughn moving to 1B is why he's projected for 2.4 fWAR now & will be much more valuable in 2023.

"The White Sox signed the weak-hitting, slow-footed, average defender in Benintendi because. well, I'm not sure why. They paid him the same AAV, but guaranteed him 32M more. "

So the White got the guy with the better glove (0 OAA vs -5 OAA in '21/ '22), better speed (55th %ile sprint speed vs 39th) and better bat (122 wRC+ vs 113), so it makes sense that the Sox would pay more in total for Benintendi than Haniger.

If Benintendi is a "weak-hitting, slow-footed, average defender", then that's not good news for Haniger and the Giants.

The Correa news has you all messed up it appears.

Agree1 Disagree1

22 Dec 2022 13:14:36
Any coincidence you've shifted to DC projections all of a sudden and not ZiPS, as you've relentlessly used in the past?

It couldn't be that multiple of your precious wittle White Sox players have nearly a full win's worth of better projections, could it?

Also, for someone demanding context and consideration of injuries, your Benintendi to Haniger comparison is laughable. Haniger was injured for a good portion of '22 (or do we not get to consider that, since he's not a member of the red-headed step child Chicago team? ) . So let's go back to his 2021 numbers:

Haniger in '21- 121 wRC+, 122 OPS+
Benintendi in '22- 122 wRC+, 120 OPS+

Now, Benintendi's numbers are based on a CAREER HIGH BABIP. One that will almost undoubtedly come back to earth. We already saw the regression take place with the Yankees, where his BABIP dropped 63 (! ) points in just a matter of months.

Agree1 Disagree0

22 Dec 2022 13:39:50
"If Benintendi is a "weak-hitting, slow-footed, average defender", then that's not good news for Haniger and the Giants. "

"So the White got the guy with the better glove (0 OAA vs -5 OAA in '21/ '22), better speed (55th %ile sprint speed vs 39th) and better bat (122 wRC+ vs 113), so it makes sense that the Sox would pay more in total for Benintendi than Haniger. "

It's hilarious how you used Statcast metrics until it got to the bat LMAOOOOO. Gee, I wonder why? (BTW, this theme is no longer interesting or fun, it's actually a really pathetic look on you) .

Aside from plate discipline, Andrew Benintendi is hardly in the same league as Haniger, offensively.

Statcast metrics from 22 & 21, respectively (last healthy season for both)

Barrel- AB 25 vs. MH 82.
HartHit- 43 vs. 73
xwOBA- 70 vs. 74
xSLG- 55 vs. 81
Chase- 84 vs. 38
xBA- 86 vs. 65

Benintendi offers one thing: plate discipline, and even that wasn't even remotely consistent over his best offensive season he's ever had. His K-rate rose by a full 6% when he went to New York (it's almost as if playing better competition makes you worse! ) He whiffed quite a bit more, and his outside contact% dropped by 20% (that's insane) while his outsize swing rate increased.

So the one thing that Benintendi offers over Haniger, we're not even sure if it'll hold up.

His 84th percentile chase rate in 2022 was just 30th in 2021. His 74th percentile walk rate in '22 was 18th in 2021.

Benintendi offers better defense. (The Giants didn't sign Haniger for his defense) . He probably offer better baserunner, albeit not much. But if you think the bat is better, you're lying to yourself.

Then again, you've consistently insisted that BABIP regression isn't a thing on this site (Avisail Garcia, Yoan Moncada), and each time I've said it, I've been dead on accurate.

Andrew Benintendi will be a sub-100 wRC+ hitter in 2023. Mark my words. He's the White Sox's next Dallas Keuchel.

And want another prediction? Thairo Estrada will finish 2023 with a higher fWAR than every White Sox hitter. Literally all of them. He'll be better. Wait and see.

In the meantime, keep ignoring those ZiPS projections. Hilarious that you don't reference them anymore.

Agree4 Disagree0

22 Dec 2022 14:11:14
Finally:

"You trash Clevinger like the Giants didn't just commit more money to Sean Manaea who had a worse xRV than Clevinger in 2022."

You love to limit your look to one stat, and it's absolutely precious. It's almost like you're trying to find one stat to prove your point and ignore all the ones that hurt your point. But you would NEVER do that would you? (Narrator: He ALWAYS does that)

For what it's worth, there isn't even an immediately available public leaderboard for xRV, or at least not one that is readily available through multiple pages of Google searching. (Hint: there's a reason none of those sites are using xRV)

And beyond the stats, let's address this point: over the past 3 seasons, with the new pitching team for the Giants, they've helped improve the careers of countless pitchers: Kevin Gausman, Anthony DeSclafani, Alex Wood, Tyler Anderson, Drew Smyly.

They fixed Logan Webb, by ditching his FB and turning him into a sinker-baller. Who else was a sinker-baller? Alex Cobb, who they turned a sinker that was typically +5 OAA into a -5 OAA pitch overnight.

Alex Wood, also a sinker-baller. His sinker went from +1 OAA with the Dodgers to -13 OAA with the Giants the next season.

Anthony DeSclafani. His sinker went from +4 OAA to -8 overnight.

So Sean Manaea, who throws his sinker 61% of the time, you don't think that same pitching staff can fix that?

It sure would be great if you at least, I don't know, TRIED to pretend you had any idea what you were talking about.

Agree2 Disagree0

22 Dec 2022 16:17:58
"Any coincidence you've shifted to DC projections all of a sudden and not ZiPS, as you've relentlessly used in the past? "

Here's the definition of DC projections for you: "FanGraphs Depth Chart projections are a combination of ZiPS and Steamer projections with playing time allocated by our staff. "

I'm really not sure how you can question whether Benintendi's plate discipline (which ironically is super sticky YOY) will "hold up", when Haniger literally averaged 106 games per season with Seattle. You should be questioning whether Haniger in general will hold up.

"[Benintendi] probably offer better baserunner, albeit not much"

Well, you see, we can quantify these things too. Benintendi's career BsR is 9.2. Haniger? -4.8. That's a considerable difference.

The Giants didn't sign Haniger for his defense, but they probably should have targeted a better defender. It's really hard to win games with a terrible outfield defense (as the Sox & Giants showed) . The Sox dropped Pollock, Vaughn and Sheets from the OF and will have Colas and Benintendi out there in 2023, but the Giants, in their much bigger park, will still have below average defenders at the corners. Bold strategy.

"For what it's worth, there isn't even an immediately available public leaderboard for xRV, or at least not one that is readily available through multiple pages of Google searching. (Hint: there's a reason none of those sites are using xRV) "

Check out PitchingBot. xRV is a better descriptive & predictive pitching metric than FIP, SIERA, xFIP etc., but likely won't land on the mainstream sites being AI-based. It might still be a bit much for you given your elementary-level advanced metric understanding, however. OAA and WAR have been kicking your behind recently.

You point out what the Giants have done for sinker guys - it's all true. But yet you bash the White Sox for a Clevinger signing like Ethan Katz hasn't fixed guys like Giolito, Rodon, Lopez, etc. in his short tenure with the club. It apparently only makes sense for the Giants to buy low on a guy, not any other team.

Your "mark my words" proclamations on this site usually turn out to be pretty laughable, and you're setting yourself up for more this offseason.

Agree1 Disagree0

22 Dec 2022 18:57:07
"But yet you bash the White Sox for a Clevinger signing like Ethan Katz hasn't fixed guys like Giolito, Rodon, Lopez, etc. in his short tenure with the club. "

Lucas Giolito had a 4.90 ERA and a 4.06 FIP in 2022, Ethan Katz' second year with the club. It was his worst season, objectively, since 2019. Man, what a job "fixing" him up LMAOOOO.

And to make the situation with Giolito worse, Katz was his HS coach! LOL.

Can the White Sox fix Mike Clevinger? I mean, sure, it's always possible. But there's a much greater chance, and recent track record of the Giants being a place that restore sinker-ballers. It's pretty well documented they've done this, and for someone pretending to be as "analytically minded" as yourself (we all know it's an act, but I digress), one would think you've picked up on this.

As far as xRV goes, I found the site.

And for a "better pitching metric than FIP, SIERA, xFIP etc. ", I find this funny:

Verlander Overall xRV/ 100: -0.1
Kaleb Ort: -0.15

Ort, mind you, had a 4.84 FIP, 5.15 xFIP, 4.49 SIERA.

Verlander, who won the Cy Young, had a 2.49 FIP, 3.23 xFIP, 3.09 SIERA.

Ort had a lesser K-BB% (9.0 vs. 23.4) and worse statcast metrics.

I have a hunch why none of the major publications even *reference* xRV, and it's not because it's, as you say, "AI-based. "

Agree1 Disagree0

22 Dec 2022 20:21:17
"And to make the situation with Giolito worse, Katz was his HS coach! LOL. "

It's public knowledge that Giolito worked with Katz prior his breakout-2019. It was a considerable factor in him landing the pitching coach job.

Lol, you want to use a single pitcher comparison to render xRV useless. Ort had almost 12 K/ 9 and a 2.70 FIP in AAA. He's got really intriguing stuff. xRV would say that Ort is a potential breakout candidate.

And careful which random relievers you reference tho. Remember how you bashed K-BB% (and lookie there, you're now using it) and used Hoby Milner, Scott Effross and Jason Adam as your evidence, only for those 3 guys all to enjoy breakout campaigns? LMAOOOO

"I have a hunch why none of the major publications even *reference* xRV, and it's not because it's, as you say, "AI-based. ""

Would you call The Athletic a "major publication"? Because Eno Sarris references it all the time. Trust me, pitch quality metrics are what front offices use to evaluate and target pitchers, not the mainstream stats like, your personal favorite, xFIP.

Agree1 Disagree0

22 Dec 2022 20:32:42
And there we have it.

Passan just reported that it was, in fact, as I said, Zaidi that "expressed trepidation over results of the standard medical analysis of Correa", and it was literally over an 8-year old injury. He either got cold feet about the money commitment, or was never on board and used this a a cop-out to ownership. Just an embarrassing turn of events for Zaidi & the organization in general.

Agree1 Disagree0

22 Dec 2022 22:34:47
Literally every bit of local reporting for the Giants is pointing that Charles Johnson wanted out. It was Farhan Zaidi who did what he was told and tried to renegotiate. Boras and Correa didn't want to renegotiate. (And the whole 12 hours of radio silence bit was a total lie, for what it's worth. Boras didn't answer the phone. )

It should also be pointed out the the Giants Medical Staff is widely considered one of the best (the White Sox is also very well respected) . If the Giants medical staff alerts the front office to something, it's probably not nothing.

There are countless videos of Correa lifting weights that would make even the scrawniest weaksauce like Chi Sox cringe at watching it. I don't know how he doesn't break his back or ankles.

Then there's the throwing, his ankles damn-near buckle each time he throws. Just watch him. If the ankle injury didn't have an impact, he's legitimately not going to be able to do this for 6-7 more years.

It's also not nothing that the Houston Astros weren't willing to re-sign him, and that the BEST deal he got last winter was a 3-year deal from the Twins (who are one of the worst medical teams in not just baseball, but all of professional sports, along with the Mets, coincidentally) .

Moral of the story: the Giants likely dodged a huge bullet with Correa. Does it kinda stink? Yeah. Would he help immediately? Also yes. But you're acting like the Giants franchise is over because of it.

Then again, no one has or ever will accuse you of making reasonable takes.

Agree1 Disagree0

22 Dec 2022 22:53:23
Was it a bad look? Of course it was. The optics aren't great.

But you know, it could be worse. They could have tried to bury a second-offense DUI arrest of a managerial hire!

Agree1 Disagree0

22 Dec 2022 23:14:36
Lastly, consider some other pressing details for the Giants:

-The Giants took a flyer on a 3-year deal with Anthony DeSclafani, who had a previous ankle injury and he sat out most of 2022 with, wanna guess?, an ankle injury.

-Tommy La Stella, who was a 3-year deal, sat out for most of 2022 with an achilles injury, which is recurring from an old injury.

The Giants have been known to take risks on injury-prone players. They signed Rodon, they brought Belt on a qualifying offer (Belt played in just 78 games in 2022).

That was over $30M worth of risks they took, and ultimately lost, from just 2022. They are already taking a $43M gamble on Mitch Haniger.

If something came up about a previous injury for a 13-year, $350M deal that changes the projection tables, do you blame the Giants for reneging? Their 2022 season was marred by previous injuries/ surgeries that reappeared for their players.

The White Sox probably would share similar concerns (although we know the White Sox don't swim in the expensive player waters) if nothing due to the amount of injuries they've had to work through.

Correa isn't exactly known for being super healthy, either.

Agree1 Disagree0

23 Dec 2022 15:44:17
Well at least now they've reinvested most of the 2023 Correa money into a staple of health - Michael Conforto.

Agree1 Disagree0

23 Dec 2022 16:42:27
Yes, how dare they sign him to a 13-year deal worth $350M.

Oh wait, it was for two years, $36M? Imagine thinking those are remotely the same risk.

I'm sure you have some made up, cherry-picked stat to give the room, though?

Agree2 Disagree0

23 Dec 2022 16:50:07
And look man, I get it, you're bummed that the White Sox only added Benintendi and Clevinger. And to think, they spent $87M on those deals.

Again, they'll likely be offloading a good player to save money so they can afford that 87M.

So yeah, I understand your desire to trash other teams' moves, but imagine looking at the White Sox offseason and thinking the Giants are in a bad spot. The White Sox actually got worse LMAO.

Agree1 Disagree0

29 Dec 2022 14:31:08
Regarding the original comment about Zaidi versus Hahn, it's comical you can't see the difference between a GM possibly having different feelings about a marquee FA than his ownership and, I don't know, willingly hiring a multiple-DUI offender and just going along with it.

That you can't tell the difference says a lot about you.

Agree2 Disagree0

29 Dec 2022 17:45:58
My guy, you legitimately made the argument that pre-arb extensions that both parties willingly agree to were racist, and root for a team and promote a GM who not only just botched on of their biggest FA acquisitions in team history, but willingly works under a QAnon-donanting owner.

You can talk about TLR (a manager who has since been fired) and his DUI (a terrible act), but it doesn't really compare.

In spite of their wildly disappointing 2022 season, White Sox literally won the Selig award for philanthropic excellence due to their Amateur City Elite (ACE) baseball program for inner-city minorities - almost all of which being black youths. Life-changing stuff.

The Giants owner and primary shareholder writes checks to the alt-right, and it's no surprise that their ENTIRE projected major league roster consists of 5 minority players.

Agree2 Disagree5

29 Dec 2022 22:54:17
"The Giants owner and primary shareholder writes checks to the alt-right, and it's no surprise that their ENTIRE projected major league roster consists of 5 minority players. "

Yes, let's break down the "alt-right" decisions from the Giants:

-They hired a Muslim as their President of Baseball Operations

-They hired a very outspoken progressive democrat who very publicly boycotted the National Anthem in 2022. A true alt-right team would have fired him.

-Not only did they not fire Gabe Kapler for this, when Sam Coonrod spoke out against kneeling for the Anthem, they traded him to Philadelphia.

-They offered the largest contract in team history to a Latino player (before medicals forced them to back out, as is the case with the Mets, it seems) .

-They cut all ties from Aubrey Huff over alt-right commentary, and went so far as not inviting him to the World Series reunion.

-They employ a black, female PA announcer (the first full-time black, female PA announcer in baseball history) .

If the Giants' principal owner (Charles Johnson, age 89) who handed over control and chairman duties to his son, Greg, nearly a decade ago, is seeking to make the Giants an alt-right team, he's as successful as a Rick Hahn team in the playoffs.

And to think, you thought you were doing something here LMAO.

Agree4 Disagree0

29 Dec 2022 22:56:55
My apologies, Renel Brooks-Moon was the SECOND full-time black, female PA announcer.

The first was Sherry Davis who was employed by the San Francisco Giants.

Charles Johnson is cutting checks to black women, Muslim men and outspoken progressives. Meanwhile, his team is disinviting Aubrey Huff and Sam Coonrod.

Such alt-right activity taking place!

Agree3 Disagree0

29 Dec 2022 23:30:49
One last bit, just to help prove your clown take wrong:

The Giants' PUBLIC statement on Charles Johnson's donations:

"he Giants' reputation as one of the most inclusive and socially engaged professional sports teams in the nation speaks for itself. We are unaware of Mr. Johnson's political donations because they are entirely separate from his stake in the Giants ownership group. In no way do the Giants condone this disturbing and divisive political activity. "

Take extra note of that last bit: "disturbing and divisive".

Man, even Charles' own team (which he doesn't have any day-to-day decision making power and hasn't since 2013) spoke out against him.

Meanwhile, there were a grand total of ZERO (0) public comments from the White Sox regarding the deplorable and despicable decision to hire TLR a day after getting arrested for his second DUI. No discipline. No criticism from the club. Nothing except full acceptance from everyone in the front office.

Again, you trying to tear down the Giants to dismiss the absolute deplorableness of what Reinsdorf did is not surprising. It'd just be a good idea if it were remotely grounded in reality.

Agree4 Disagree0

30 Dec 2022 22:50:46
Don't overthink it.

The primary shareholder of the San Francisco Giants supports QAnon and you continue to promote the business that he owns.

I support the team whose manager (a single employee) was arrested for a DUI and has since been fired.

Agree0 Disagree3

31 Dec 2022 02:55:52
"Primary shareholder"

Look, I know your brain is rotted by a pathetic excuse of an owner who micromanages his baseball team by overruling his front office and hiring a drunk as a manager, but most teams allow their front office to do the work and have little involvement in the day-to-day operations of the team.

The Johnson family, namely GREG, not senile Charlie, steps in when it's time to sign big fish. Otherwise, they leave the decisions to Zaidi, who often refers to Larry Baer when it comes to needing ownership input.

I'm really sorry that what you were hoping was true isn't true.

You really tried to suggest the Giants operate their team by Charles Johnson's politics. and it's easily the worst take we've ever seen on this site. EASILY.

Agree2 Disagree0

31 Dec 2022 04:23:00
"a pathetic excuse of an owner who micromanages his baseball team by overruling his front office and hiring a drunk as a manager, but most teams allow their front office to do the work and have little involvement in the day-to-day operations of the team. "

Buddy, you are preaching to the choir here.

Is Charles Johnson not the primary shareholder of the San Francisco Giants? Did he not donate to QAnon? Do you not support the Giants org? Did the White Sox not get rid of Tony La Russa?

What am I missing here? But my "brain is rotted"?

Agree0 Disagree5

31 Dec 2022 05:15:58
Primary shareholder doesn't mean "makes all the decisions"

I don't know why you think that's what it means, but it's pretty clear that Charles Johnson isn't making decisions, as the "alt-right" stuff isn't as apparent as you wish.

You seem very passionate and desirous that the Giants would hire and sign MAGA/ QAnon folks. In fact, you're the only one who brings this up. I'm really sorry, for your sake, that this isn't the case.

Wanna share any deep, repressed political leanings with the group?

(And no, donating to a political candidate, even ones you and I reasonably disagree with, is not worse than knowingly hiring a guy coming off his SECOND DUI arrest. Not even remotely. That you can't understand this is deeply concerning. )

Agree3 Disagree0

31 Dec 2022 05:57:04
Jerry Reinsdorf also has questionable political contributions. No surprise Chi Sox doesn't address these.

According to OpenSecrets:

$2,800 to election denier Kelly Loeffler

$11,200 to election denier, anti-LGBTQ, MAGA David Perdue

$2,900 to election denier, QAnon candidate Jeremy Shaffer

$2,900 to anti-ADA, anti-LGBTQ Mark Brnovich

$5,600 to anti-LGBTQ, anti-woman Todd Young

Donations to Joni Ernst, Mike Bost, Don Bacon, Mike Gallagher, Dan Meuser. The list goes on and on and on. Election deniers. MAGA candidates. Anti-LGBTQ, anti-women, anti-labor candidates. Reinsdorf donated a lot of money to these individuals.

Normally, I don't care. Rich owners are notoriously Republican. I gave up on caring a long time ago, but I find it hilarious you didn't even bother looking at who Jerry Reinsdorf has donated to, since 2020. I didn't even go beyond that, because I didn't need to.

His house isn't clean, either. At least Charles Johnson asked for (and received) his donations back.

Agree2 Disagree0

01 Jan 2023 18:08:05
Donating directly to QAnon vs. Conservative politicians is not the same, for the record. There's a reason why there are multiple stories about Johnson's actions and not these donations from Reinsdorf. If it were a big deal, the Chicago media would be all over it, trust me. Like you said, Reinsdorf's actions are not atypical.

Remember - the only reason why politics are being discussed on this forum is because in response to my claim that Rick Hahn has done a nice job of building a core of good, young players, (something that Zaidi has yet to do, but is desperately trying to do) you said that he and Alex Anthopoulos were actually racist human beings for signing minority players to pre-arb extensions. One of the most ridiculous sports takes I have ever heard - probably something you read from Vox or the New York times that you were eager to share.

I called that awfully ironic for a fan of a team whose primary owner is a QAnon donator. And now you have to try and "well actually" your way out the fact that Johnson owns the team by referencing decision-making duties, as if that alleviates him from being the primary shareholder, a role that I think you need to Google to know what that means. Whether Charles Johnson has been making decisions recently or not, the San Francisco Giants organization will do as he says if he decides he wants to do something - that's the power he has as the primary shareholder.

It's the same situation for the Chicago Bulls and Jerry's son, Michael, who's been given the day-to-day duties.

Agree0 Disagree3

02 Jan 2023 03:47:13
Also, you've propped up the "but TLR has been fired" nonsense several times.

1) TLR wasn't fired because of the DUI. No, quite the opposite. The White Sox hired him KNOWING about the DUI. Not a single member within their organization spoke out about it. No one. (Again, take note that the Giants made an OFFICIAL STATEMENT condemning Johnson's donations. Crazy how that works, eh? )

2) It doesn't matter that he was fired. He should have never been hired in the first place. That's the point. Even if he was fired for the DUI (again, he wasn't), why'd they hire him knowing what they knew?

Don't dodge this fact. Firing Tony La Russa because he was objectively bad at his job (and probably closed the window of contention completely shut in baseball's easiest division) doesn't absolve Reinsdorf of anything here.

He hired Tony La Russa. And you criticize Farhan Zaidi for potentially having a disagreement with his ownership (a point which has been debunked), but yet, Rick Hahn got a pass for just being a total cuck and letting Reinsdorf do whatever he wants?

And even if your take was true, don't you find it ironic that it was Farhan Zaidi who killed the deal. After all, if the ownership wanted Correa, but Farhan Zaidi called off the deal, Zaidi would have been fired. Point blank.

Crazy how Zaidi could have a disagreement with ownership (he didn't) and still be allowed to have the power and control of his team!

But yet, 2020 Sporting News Executive of the Year Runner-Up Rick Hahn couldn't possibly speak up or act against his ownership hiring TLR? Remember, Hahn's pick was A. J. Hinch. We're not exactly talking about a bastion of morally-excellent decision making here.

In recap: in your theory, Farhan Zaidi DID act against his ownership for something he didn't like. Rick Hahn didn't.

The Giants DID make an official statement condemning the actions of their owner. The White Sox did not.

This isn't an apples to apples comparison. The White Sox owner is objectively a worse person. Which makes sense, considering their team is an objectively worse team.

Seriously, run along.

Agree1 Disagree0

02 Jan 2023 18:10:53
"One of the most ridiculous sports takes I have ever heard - probably something you read from Vox or the New York times that you were eager to share. "

Ironic coming from the guy who examined the "whiteness" of the San Francisco Giants roster.

Agree0 Disagree0

02 Jan 2023 20:42:25
You're still not denying the "re-arb extensions are racist" take!

Dude!

Agree0 Disagree2

03 Jan 2023 16:34:57
You're still not denying the "Giants operate like an alt-right team" take!

Dude!

Agree1 Disagree0

03 Jan 2023 22:52:42
I simply made an observation about the Giants' owner and the composition of their current roster. You are choosing to draw conclusions that make the most sense to you.

You, on the other hand, flat out called pre-arb extensions racist.

Agree0 Disagree2

04 Jan 2023 20:23:12
LMAO. You didn't make a conclusion?

"it's no surprise that their ENTIRE projected major league roster consists of 5 minority players. "

I know that this isn't your thing, and that you'll never be accountable for any of the nonsense you say on this site, but that's about as ludicrous of a conclusion one can draw.

At least my take isn't remotely original.

But it's comical that you think the Giants are racist in how they hire, but that pre-arb mega-extensions aren't completely exploitative by MLB teams.

But then again, I wouldn't expect a fan of the team who kept saying Eloy Jimenez wasn't ready for the majors until one day, he signed a pre-arb extension, and then he was magically and suddenly ready! How crazy is that?

But clearly no manipulation, exploitation or malicious behavior was at play? Right? Right? Rigggghhhhttt?

But it must be a fluke. It clearly didn't happen with a second player, say, Luis Robert. Oh wait. Yikes.

The White Sox could throw a player into the ocean with a cinder block on his shoulders and you'd commend them. It's pure garbage at this point. But why am I not surprised?

Agree0 Disagree0

05 Jan 2023 06:18:12
See, you're now grouping service time manipulation with pre-arb extensions. They're not the same thing. You're now changing the subject. The latter is an agreement that is voluntary by both parties. Calling these extensions "exploitive" is foolish.

What's even crazier (and again, different) is what you originally said - that they were "racist". It gets confusing, then, when Austin Riley, Spencer Strider, Aaron Bummer, etc. sign pre-arb extensions - doesn't quite fit the narrative.

Neither Robert nor Jimenez's debut date was to be affected by their contract status (Andrew Vaughn was in discussions to sign an extension prior to the 2021 season and was still on the OD roster when one didn't get finalized) . Plus, in the middle of Robert & Jimenez's extensions, are they grossly underpaid? No. Robert in particular got a huge signing bonus out of Cuba - he in no way needed the money up front, compensation smoothing is just a real thing. If he or his agent felt that they were being exploited, they could have 1. just said no to the extension offers like tons of players do, or 2. if you think a front office is being unethical, that's why you have a player's union.

Agree0 Disagree2

05 Jan 2023 15:25:07
"See, you're now grouping service time manipulation with pre-arb extensions. "

No, I'm saying that literally anyone with a few brain cells can connect the link to the White Sox's pre-arb extensions with the service-time manipulation. The coincidental nature of Robert and Jimenez both being considered "not ready" for the Majors, and then just months after those comments were made, they sign extremely team-friendly deals and voila! they are MLB ready? Yeah, miss me with the BS.

"What's even crazier (and again, different) is what you originally said - that they were "racist". It gets confusing, then, when Austin Riley, Spencer Strider, Aaron Bummer, etc. sign pre-arb extensions - doesn't quite fit the narrative. "

TIL that racism isn't real if white people sometimes get similar treatment. Not every pre-arb extension is exploitive. Julio Rodriguez * Wander Franco got hundreds of millions. Fernando Tatis Jr. got one of the biggest contracts in American sports history.

But suggesting that many of the pre-arb extensions that have been thrown around, notably by the White Sox and Braves, aren't racist because white dudes also received them is ludicrous, and I suspect even you know this.

"Andrew Vaughn was in discussions to sign an extension prior to the 2021 season and was still on the OD roster when one didn't get finalized"

Ah yes, the White Sox will not manipulate the service time of their prized White Prospect, but will do so on for their Latino players. Thanks for playing.

"if you think a front office is being unethical, that's why you have a player's union. "

The Players Union is in an impossible spot here. What are they supposed to tell their players? Don't take the money? If they start airing the grievance against these extensions, players stop getting guaranteed money and then have to get low-balled in arbitration. There's next to no recourse for the player's union that doesn't end up hurting them. That's why these extensions are so advantageous to the teams.

The word "racist" was incendiary. Intentionally so. It's probably exaggerative, but it doesn't dismiss the fact that many Latino players have been given the option of either being lowballed in arbitration or forced to accept a less-than-market value extension. In some cases, they even are threatened with being held in the minors for longer until they sign their deals.

I'll willingly walk back the "racist" part, since you despise it so much (especially since it presents a REALLY bad look for Ricky Hahn and Reinsdorf) .

But there's no way you'll be able to walk back accusing the Giants of constructing their roster in an "alt-right" manner. None. It was literal nonsense with ZERO backing.

Again, at least my take has some evidence behind it. Yours doesn't.

You're just in a mood of making absolutely ludicrous takes about the Giants, and you do so because you're jealous of them. This much is true.

Agree1 Disagree0

25 Nov 2022 15:56:06
Free Agent Predictions (sorted by position)

CATCHERS
Willson Contreras- Tigers, 5/100
Omar Narvaez- Red Sox, 2/15
Gary Sanchez- Cardinals, 2/16
Christian Vazquez- Giants, 2/14

FIRST BASE
Jose Abreu- Padres, 2/36
Josh Bell- Astros, 4/48
Brandon Belt- Cubs, 1/10
Trey Mancini- Guardians, 1/8

SECOND BASE
Adam Frazier- Nationals, 1/5
Jean Segura- Mariners, 1/10.5

SHORTSTOPS
Elvis Andrus- Orioles, 1/5.5
Xander Bogaerts- Phillies 7/196
Carlos Correa- Giants, 8/260
Jose Iglesias- Cubs, 1/4
Dansby Swanson- Orioles, 7/175
Trea Turner- Dodgers, 5/185

THIRD BASE
Brian Anderson- Giants, 1/6
Jeimer Candelario- Brewers, 1/6
Justin Turner- Dodgers, 1/10

LEFT FIELD
Andrew Benintendi- Rockies, 3/36
Michael Brantley- Marlins, 2/25
Joey Gallo- Dodgers, 1/12.5
David Peralta- Pirates, 1/5
Jurickson Profar- Astros, 2/20

CENTER FIELD
Cody Bellinger- Tigers, 1/13.5
Kevin Kiermaier- White Sox, 1/10
Brandon Nimmo- Rangers, 6/150

RIGHT FIELD
Mitch Haniger- Giants, 2/32
Aaron Judge- Yankees, 8/340
Wil Myers- Orioles, 1/9
AJ Pollock- Red Sox, 2/22
Matasaka Yoshida- Padres, 3/27

DESIGNATED HITTER
J.D. Martinez- Cardinals, 1/12

STARTING PITCHERS
Chris Bassitt- Mets, 3/51
Jacob deGrom- Rangers, 3/117
Zach Eflin- Orioles, 2/30
Nathan Eovaldi- Red Sox, 3/39
Andrew Heaney- Rays, 2/20
Sean Manaea- Cubs, 1/10
Jose Quintana- White Sox, 2/26
Carlos Rodon- Tigers, 5/130
Kodai Senga- Giants, 4/44
Noah Syndergaard- Padres, 2/30
Jameson Taillon- Blue Jays, 3/30
Justin Verlander- Astros, 2/80
Taijuan Walker- Dodgers, 3/40

RELIEF PITCHERS
Kenley Jansen- Giants, 1/14
Craig Kimbrel- Angels, 1/8
Aroldis Chapman- Diamondbacks, 1/7.5
Brad Hand- Mets, 2/15
Taylor Rogers, Cubs, 1/6.5
Will Smith, Mariners- 2/15

Believable13 Unbelievable6

28 Nov 2022 13:13:47
Chi Sox doesn't like that I have Craig Kimbrel making $8M. He thinks it somehow means that I'm inconsistent on my view of Kimbrel.

This is not the case. Rather, it reveals that I see teams like the Angels having a willingness to overpay for mediocre relievers. Bad teams spend money in bad ways.

Then again, no team would ever spend $8M on a mediocre pitcher would they? Like, no one is giving that money to say, Mike Clevinger, right?

Agree11 Disagree0

28 Nov 2022 16:41:03
Certainly Farhan Zaidi has never bought low on a free agent before. It has literally never happened, right?

Guys with career 3.79 FIPs apparently suck!

Agree0 Disagree5

28 Nov 2022 16:42:50
Notice how Nate is sly to slowly walk back his take that Kimbrel is quote - "complete garbage". Now he's just "mediocre". In a couple months he'll be "solid", or something like that.

Agree1 Disagree2

28 Nov 2022 16:51:28
Nit-picky here, but if Elvis Andrus is willing to take $5.5 million to play second base, he'll 1000% be back with the White Sox. He'll want to play short somewhere.

Plus this leaves no spot for either Mateo or Henderson on that infield. They probably only add 1 more via free agency/ trade.

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Nov 2022 17:04:12
He had a 5.04 FIP as a starter in 2022, Hubert. That was the 8th worst FIP among all MLB starters with 100 IP or more.

"Guys with career 3.79 FIPs apparently suck! "

Clevinger hasn't had a sub-4 FIP season since 2019.

"Certainly Farhan Zaidi has never bought low on a free agent before. It has literally never happened, right? "

He's never spent $8M on a pitcher who was one of the worst starting pitchers in baseball in a given season, no.

If Rick Hahn wanted a guy with a FIP higher than 5, he could have signed Erick Fedde for like a million dollars. He spent 8x as much money.

Agree1 Disagree1

28 Nov 2022 17:29:29
Scratch that, it's a 12M guarantee, not 8M. That's a comical overpay.

Agree2 Disagree1

28 Nov 2022 21:53:52
Yeah because Fedde and Clevinger have the same upsides. Of course, you're really good at this!

Agree0 Disagree0

29 Nov 2022 02:03:18
The 2020 Sporting News Executive of the Year RUNNER UP Rick Hahn just gave $12M to a pitcher who was equal to Erick Fedde, or lesser than at worst.

In the words of Elon Musk: Let that sink in.

Then again, he's the same guy who gave Dallas Keuchel $55M, so maybe we shouldn't be surprised.

Agree1 Disagree0

29 Nov 2022 04:39:09
Would you like to make another guarantee like you did for Kimbrel? "Clevinger will have a FIP above x in 2023, feel free to return to this in October. "

FWIW, I would have liked the move a lot more at $8 million than $12 million, but Katz must think he can revive some of the 2017-2020 production (only 156 innings ago) . Katz has earned that opportunity with solid progress with a lot of guys over the last 2 seasons. Clev's xRV numbers pretty clearly show that his stuff and command were better than the 2022 results showed. We'll see - he's their 5th starter, and I like this kind of upside in that slot.

Agree0 Disagree1

29 Nov 2022 13:45:31
I would bet good money Clevinger will have a FIP north of 4. He's simply not a $12M pitcher and I will LOL so hard when he is both not very good AND becomes a reason why the clubhouse falls apart, as he did in San Diego.

There were countless pitchers that both had better numbers and likely better outlooks for 2023 than Clevinger, none of whom would cost $12M in 2023.

Unless Reinsdorf is suddenly willing to spend like crazy (he won't), this was a severe waste of the teams' resources.

Here's a bet I'm even more willing to make: Davis Martin will have a better season, including FIP that is a full run higher than Clevinger's, and I don't particularly believe Martin is good.

Agree0 Disagree0

30 Nov 2022 13:07:30
Jesus, that should say a full run LOWER. Martin's FIP will be a full run lower. Clevinger's will be the higher FIP.

Agree0 Disagree0

22 Nov 2022 04:09:12
Chicago White Sox 2022-23 offseason:

- Sign Cody Bellinger (1 year, $11 million + 2024 player option, $11 million)

- Sign Wil Myers (1 year, $8 million)

- Sign Luke Weaver (1 year, $2 million)

- Acquire Jon Berti from the Marlins for Jose Rodriguez and Matthew Thompson

- Acquire Seth Brown and Paul Blackburn from the A's for Jake Burger, Peyton Pallette, Kohl Simas and Terrell Tatum

Lineup:

1. Tim Anderson - SS (R)
2. Eloy Jimenez - DH (R)
3. Seth Brown - LF (L)
4. Luis Robert - CF (R)
5. Cody Bellinger - RF (L)
6. Andrew Vaughn - 1B (R)
7. Yoan Moncada - 3B (S)
8. Jon Berti - 2B (R)
9. Yasmani Grandal - C (S)

Bench:

- Wil Myers OF/1B (platoon with Bellinger)
- Seby Zavala C
- Leury Garcia UTL
- Romy Gonzalez (platoon with Brown)

Rotation:

1. Dylan Cease (R)
2. Lance Lynn (R)
3. Lucas Giolito (R)
4. Michael Kopech (R)
5. Paul Blackburn (R)

Bullpen:

- Liam Hendriks (R)
- Kendall Graveman (R)
- Aaron Bummer (L)
- Garrett Crochet (L)
- Joe Kelly (R)
- Reynaldo Lopez (R)
- Jake Diekman (L)
- Luke Weaver (R)

Believable18 Unbelievable8

11 Nov 2022 19:31:30
NY Mets get Corbin Burnes

Mil get Kevin Parada, Jett Williams, Blade Tidwell, Calvin Zeigler, Jeff McNeil

Believable0 Unbelievable7

14 Nov 2022 04:09:12
Alright, take the prize for worst trade proposal this site has ever seen.

Agree5 Disagree6

10 Nov 2022 21:29:08
MIA gets Megill, Vientos Dom Smith

Mets get Pablo Lopez

Believable1 Unbelievable8

12 Nov 2022 14:17:45
This would be excellent for the Mets. But none of those are going to excite the Marlins, who are trading Lopez within the division.

Swap Vientos for Brett Baty.

Agree4 Disagree1

07 Nov 2022 15:47:26
Giants Offseason:

Free Agents:
Sign SS Carlos Correa, 8/260M
Sign SP Kodai Senga, 4/44M
Sign RP Chris Martin, 1/4M
Sign C Christian Vazquez, 2/14M
Sign 1B Josh Bell, 3/36M

Trades:
Acquire OF Ramon Laureano & RHP James Kaprielian from Oakland for OF Grant McCray, RHP Ryan Murphy, OF Luis Gonzalez, RHP Sam Delaplane

Acquire 3B Mike Moustakas & 3B Sal Stewart from Cincinnati for 2B Tommy La Stella. (Immediately cut Moustakas)

Opening Day Lineup
RF- Yastrzemski
1B- Bell
LF- Laureano
3B- Correa
DH- Davis
2B- Estrada
CF- Slater
C- Bart
SS- Crawford

Bench:
C- Vazquez
2B- Flores
3B- Villar
OF- Wade Jr.

Rotation:
1- Webb
2- Senga
3- Cobb
4- DeSclafani
5- Wood

Bullpen
CP- Doval
SU- Martin
SU- Brebbia
RP- Rogers
RP- Young
RP- Kaprielian
RP- Alexander
RP- Junis

Believable7 Unbelievable6

22 Nov 2022 04:15:14
I don't think Correa is signing to be a third baseman at 28 years old, especially when the shortstop is a 36 year old on a 1 year deal as an inferior defender.

The Giants should go hard for Judge and then quickly pivot to Nimmo if the Yankees don't let him leave.

Agree2 Disagree1

22 Nov 2022 15:38:07
Based on Crawford's injury history the past few seasons, there's a good chance Correa (or any SS, should the Giants sign one) would get more reps at SS than any other position. But they'll ask any of their middle infield guys to take reps at 2B/ 3B (much like Trea Turner in '21 when he went to the Dodgers) until Crawford's deal is through. They may not even play Crawford very much against LHP, which will open up that spot for RHH.

Not to mention, noted Correa friend and former boss Pete Putila could probably convince Carlos to take 3B for one of the 8 years of his contract to help the team as it's currently assembled.

Agree0 Disagree0

22 Nov 2022 15:39:53
"especially when the shortstop is a 36 year old on a 1 year deal as an inferior defender. "

Crawford's last 3 seasons' dWAR: 7.6, 17.1, 9.2
Correa's last 3: 5.6, 14.9, 2.0

Correa is an excellent defender, but even at Crawford's age, he's still the objectively better defender. Those damn, pesky statistics. Always ruining your silly takes!

Agree0 Disagree0

22 Nov 2022 15:53:34
Clarification: that's not "dWAR", it's Fangraphs' defense rating.

Agree0 Disagree0

22 Nov 2022 16:28:52
2022-

Crawford: -6 DRS
Correa: 3 DRS

Career-

Crawford: 69 DRS (12872.0 innings)
Correa: 70 DRS (7666.2 innings)

"Pesky statistics"

FanGraphs uses UZR for DEF, which doesn't take the shift in account, essentially making it a useless stat (it may now be semi-useful given the shift ban starting? ) .

Based on various studies, DRS is almost always the go-to for infielders, while OAA is the best for outfielders.

Agree0 Disagree0

22 Nov 2022 17:36:00
"Various studies"

Are these from the same folks who predicted the Giants would have just one 110+ wRC+ hitter in 2022? Or that they'd win less than 80 games in 2021? Or that the White Sox would win 95 games in 2022? Let's be honest: your track record on this stuff isn't exactly stellar LMAO.

There's no argument from me that Correa is an elite defender. But the Giants have already pointed out, if you bothered to look ANYTHING up, that they will use Crawford at SS for 2023. This would mean any SS acquired would need to man 2B or 3B for the 2023 season, while getting reps at SS for the purposes of giving Crawford the rest.

This isn't me talking out of my you-know-where, it's directly from interviews that Farhan Zaidi has publicly made.

Regardless of how you feel Correa vs. Crawford defensively, it's better to go with the front office's own claims on the issue: they want Crawford at SS for 2023.

Agree0 Disagree0

22 Nov 2022 17:42:57
"FanGraphs uses UZR for DEF, which doesn't take the shift in account, essentially making it a useless stat"

Interesting. Because Correa's UZR and DRS are higher than Crawford's, and yet, their Defensive Rating for Crawford was over 4 times higher.

Make of that what you want, but I don't think it's as simple as "DEF uses UZR, UZR is bad, therefore DEF is bad". Again, Correa's UZR is higher, despite his DEF being 22% of Crawford.

Also funny you'd dismiss OAA. Is that because Crawford was 93rd Percentile while Correa was 18th? Couldn't be due to the number not matching the reality you desire, could it?

Chi Sox would NEVER do that. (Narrator: Chis Sox ALWAYS does that)

Agree1 Disagree1

22 Nov 2022 18:41:00
"There's no argument from me that Correa is an elite defender"

That should say "ISN'T". Correa is a stellar defender.

Agree0 Disagree0

22 Nov 2022 18:58:32
You can google, right? Google how DEF is calculated. Read about how UZR completely eliminates shifted plays from their calcs and then consider how much teams have shifted their infielders over the last couple of seasons. Research a bit about the different pros and cons of certain defensive metrics. Justin Dunbar has a solid piece on this topic if you need a bit of direction.

"Make of that what you want, but I don't think it's as simple as "DEF uses UZR, UZR is bad, therefore DEF is bad". "

No, this is literally the case. No one uses UZR, and in turn, especially no one uses DEF because they are useless when shifted events are literally ignored. It's that simple, don't over-think it.

"Also funny you'd dismiss OAA. "

Nope, didn't do that. It's just that outfield OAA is 4x as predictive as infield OAA and DRS does a better job for infielders, but OAA is superior for outfielders, yet neither is perfect. Again, just Google this stuff.

But as you usually do, my original comment into something it's not. I ultimately don't care which defensive metrics you personally value to compare Crawford and Correa at short. They're pretty comparable plus defenders. My comment was that Correa's not signing to play third base. Trea Turner never signed with the Dodgers to play 2B, he was traded there and didn't have a choice, so not a comparable situation. You can argue Story, but Trevor Story doesn't have the same leverage as Carlos Correa, and it's no guarantee that Story is the Red Sox SS in '23.

Nico Hoerner is a better defender than Correa at short by every stat, but the Cubs aren't going after Correa to play 3B or 2B - Correa is signing to be an everyday SS in year 1, no matter who that's with, hence why the Giants should target Judge and Nimmo. Their current SS is still solid. You're acting like Correa wanting to sign as a SS when he has literally no reason not to is some kind of hot take.

Agree0 Disagree0

22 Nov 2022 20:27:24
Obviously he wants to sign as a SS, and I literally explained that there's good reason Correa would be the SS in 2023 more than he is 3B or SS, based on Crawford's handedness and injury history. If Crawford rakes in 2023, it stands to reason Correa would be the 2B or SS for a season and then get the next 7 at his preferred position. You're acting like the Giants are signing Correa to be the 3B forever. They aren't. It's one season.

If the Giants offered the best contract, do you really think Correa is going to turn it down because he has to play 3B for a few months of a mega-deal? He won't.

As far as SS vs. Judge/ Nimmo, I'd prefer they sign a shortstop. The available SS will never be better, and the Giants will have an opening there after next season. Luciano isn't going to stay at SS (he'll get moved to 2B), and they don't have another SS ready to go. If they miss out on Judge (which I think Judge is going back to NY), they'll pivot and offer that money to a shortstop.

It'll likely be either Correa (his connection to Pete Putila) or Trea Turner (under Zaidi, the Giants have made many efforts to land NC State guys. They cited this when they signed Rodon last winter) .

Agree0 Disagree0

22 Nov 2022 20:52:00
The OAA is better for Outfielder argument might work if this was 2019, as it was an outfielder-only stat prior to 2020. So most of your research is still going to factor in OAA with outfielders in mind, specifically, as that is what it was limited to.

In fact, OAA factors in shifting as well, making it fairly useful (and the lack of a shift won't change that reliability) .

Again, this isn't dismissing Correa's defensive abilities, but there are MANY writers, many of whom you would respect, that agree with this assessment. Take Ben Clemens from Fangraphs:

"If you’re looking for a reason to doubt Correa, you’d have to look at his defense. But he’s a good defender, even if his Statcast numbers took a dip this year. Defensive metrics are noisy, and if you didn’t believe he was one of the best defenders in baseball last year (I didn’t), you probably shouldn’t believe he’s below average this year. "

Or take Keith Law's opinion:

"I think it’s also fair to question whether he’s a long-term shortstop at this point, given his age and size, although he was an above-average defender until 2022, when his metrics took a huge hit. "

Law not only points out that Correa's defense took a hit, but that he may not even stay at SS long-term.

Gee, Chi Sox, it's almost like you could Google this information and read it for yourself. But you won't do that, because it doesn't confirm what you've chosen to believe.

I admire your consistency to ignore what's literally been said by experts and by front offices on all this stuff.

Agree0 Disagree0

23 Nov 2022 03:49:01
I point you to some research studying the objective year to year reliability of infield and outfield OAA & DRS, and your rebuttal that you believe is the best shot to salvage your argument is opinions of 2 baseball writers on Correa’s defense. And KEITH LAW IS ONE OF THEM. LMAO.

At least I was able to teach you a bit about DEF and UZR. I have a feeling you won’t be referencing those anymore. Blindly rolling with OAA is at least a better option for beginners with these kinds of metrics.

Agree0 Disagree2

23 Nov 2022 12:55:49
Keith Law's opinion is:

1. Significantly more valuable than your or my opinions. Like him or not, he has more experience with this than anyone on this site. If you need a reminder: you were the one trying to convince everyone on this site that Craig Kimbrel was an elite reliever, when the Dodgers (the DODGERS) left him off their playoff roster. I seriously doubt you have any room to question an expert on their assessment of a player.

2. In line with other experts. No one believes Carlos Correa had an elite season defensively in 2022, except you. The overall stats don't prove you right, the consensus opinion doesn't look favorably to your take, nothing. All you did was take a few sampled numbers that looked good and ignored all the others and tried to convince us OAA is bad simply because it doesn't fit your theory.

Agree0 Disagree0

23 Nov 2022 12:59:00
"I point you to some research studying the objective year to year reliability of infield and outfield OAA & DRS, and your rebuttal that you believe is the best shot to salvage your argument is opinions of 2 baseball writers on Correa’s defense. "

You never pointed me to any specific research. You said "Google it", which is the classic response of anti-vaxxers and pyramid scheme pushers.

Cite your research. Tell me who wrote it. It's quite interesting you didn't do that. Instead, we were just supposed to "Google it".

I'm beginning to think the "research" may not actually exist.

Agree0 Disagree0

23 Nov 2022 15:32:35
"22 Nov 2022 18:58:32"

"Justin Dunbar has a solid piece on this topic if you need a bit of direction. "

I'll help ya out again here. It's in the comment in plain text. I said "Google it" because this stuff is not that hard to find. Maybe I'm underestimating the help you need?

"No one believes Carlos Correa had an elite season defensively in 2022, except you. "

Please show me where I said this.

"tried to convince us OAA is bad"

Please show me where I also said this.

You can just make things up, Nathan.

If we want to bring up totally unrelated previous discussions (man, are you grasping for straws or what? ), Kimbrel was no elite reliever in 2022, no, but he was in the top third of RPs with min. 20 IP by FIP. You're acting like a 3.23 FIP is atrocious because the best bullpen in baseball didn't have a spot for him in the postseason. You said he was "no longer good", which the stats tell us is incorrect, and really were more wrong than I was, which makes this kind of funny that you're bringing it up.

Should we maybe talk a bit more about how Darin Ruf is better than Jose Abreu? That's probably more up your alley. Surely Abreu's 9.4 fWAR against Ruf's 2.7 since the start of 2020 is some kind of fluke?

Agree1 Disagree0

23 Nov 2022 19:15:54
The article Justin Dunbar wrote was from May 2020 LMAOOOO. Statcast had just started introducing infield OAA. DUNBAR EVEN SAYS THIS HIMSELF.

"It was only recently that Baseball Savant came up with infield OAA, so maybe the results will get better over time"

Statcast OAA for infielders is completely different since the article was written, and the findings of "4 times more predictive for OF than INF" don't stand true today because of how OAA is measured and the details we have.

This also fails to understand something: I never said it was "predictive". I pointed out that Correa & Crawford aren't "equal" nor is Crawford "inferior" as you suggested. By all accounts, statistics as well as the opinion of those in the baseball industry, Brandon Crawford was the objectively better defender, despite being 8 years older than Correa.

I can't wait for you to use information from 2003 to convince of something for today!

Agree0 Disagree0

23 Nov 2022 19:41:47
"but he was in the top third of RPs with min. 20 IP by FIP. "

There are 321 relievers that meet the criteria of 20 IP in 2022. Kimbrel ranked 101st. Saying "top third" sounds a whole lot better than "101st"

Interesting you didn't acknowledge he was 180th in xFIP. Or that he was 121st in K-BB%, a stat of which you were so gung ho about last winter. I'm sure it's just purely oversight on your part LMAO.

And I'm sure the Dodgers picked Tommy Kahnle because he had a better FIP, which is the new "preeminent stat for evaluating pitchers according to Chi Sox". Oh wait, his FIP was a full 1.50 runs worse? Oh.

Agree0 Disagree1

23 Nov 2022 19:50:49
As far as "hot takes" go, the Darin Ruf one doesn't even land, as you continue to fail to understand the scope of that argument. It was for 2021. It was always considering 2021. But you need it to seem like I said Darin Ruf is the better career 1B. I didn't say that. I'm really sorry, Tito.

If we want to consider hot takes, look no further than this BEAUTY of a trade idea from October 2021:

"White Sox Get:
Ketel Marte 2B/ OF

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

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

Yes, the trade which the White Sox got to offload a ton of useless salary, the Diamondbacks got to clear salary, and the Angels took the brunt of it. But the White Sox landed the objectively better player, without taking on a dime of dead money.

This one still makes me laugh, because the Angels' return was so awful that it made me wonder if you were trolling.

It's even funnier that you defended the Andrew Vaughn inclusion, especially as Vaughn has -0.7 fWAR after his first 1000 PAs in the majors. I'm sure teams are just lining up to add him AND acquire Keuchel.

Crazy how, yet again, I was right on this stuff.

Agree1 Disagree1

23 Nov 2022 19:57:31
Or one last one:

"Keuchel getting to 2.8 WAR in 2022 is much more likely than JBJ getting to 2.8 WAR"

2022 fWAR:
Jackie Bradley Jr: -0.1
Dallas Keuchel: -0.3

You were so adamant that the Brewers would be "all over Keuchel" and spoke glowingly of his "5th Starter upside" despite objections.

"Keuchel is the better player - saying he's as much of a sunk cost as Bradley just really isn't true. "

LMAO.

You take more Ls than a Rick Hahn White Sox team in the playoffs.

Agree1 Disagree0

23 Nov 2022 23:35:42
"Mark my words: Craig Kimbrel will an ERA above 5.00, and a negative WAR in 2022.

Feel free to return to this in October 2022."

I have returned.

"I will also continue to hammer the point that teams aren't dropping $16M on a reliever who was good for exactly 4 months out of the past 3 seasons, and they certainly aren't giving up anything of value for him. "

"Also, your regular reminder that Craig Kimbrel is simply not a good pitcher anymore"

Oops! May not want to attempt a victory lap here, bub.

"he was 121st in K-BB%, a stat of which you were so gung ho about last winter. I'm sure it's just purely oversight on your part LMAO. "

"Some other "elite pitchers" from the 90th percentile of K-BB%: Hoby Milner, Scott Effross, Jason Adam. "

Hey Nate, do you have any update on these 3? Surely none of them were good RPs, right? Almost like K-BB% is a pretty good metric to use there buddy.

So, I said that Kimbrel was still a valuable commodity. Andrew Friedman agreed. You called him "a garbage baseball player" He finished in the 69th percentile of FIP (objectively better stat than xFIP - remember I already taught you about this? ) and 62nd peercentile of K-BB%, and you are literally trying to take a victory lab? That is funny dude.

The final thing we neeed to do is stop those racist pre-arb extentions, remember? Especially the Braves giving them to, er, Austin Riley and Spencer Strider too! How racist! Wait, hold on a second.

Your receipts are absolutely hilarious, especially when you feel like a Keuchel for JBJ swap in retrospect tells us anything. You've taken more L's than Farhan Zaidi and Gabe Kapler did against Rick Hahn and Tony freakin' La Russa in 2022. Do you ever reflect on that? The fact that a geriatric Tony La Russa strolled into San Fran, took the Giants lunch money, had Gabe helplessly deploying position players to pitch, and swept the Giants out of their own ballpark. And yet, here you are.

"Statcast OAA for infielders is completely different since the article was written, and the findings of "4 times more predictive for OF than INF" don't stand true today because of how OAA is measured and the details we have. "

Oh wow, interesting. Could you enlighten me on the updated YOY predictability? You must know because apparently my source "doesn't stand true today". I'm very interested to hear your response.

"By all accounts, statistics as well as the opinion of those in the baseball industry, Brandon Crawford was the objectively better defender, despite being 8 years older than Correa. "

So your take is that DRS for infielders is complete BS and we should disregard. Got it.

Agree1 Disagree2

25 Nov 2022 15:24:24
"So your take is that DRS for infielders is complete BS and we should disregard. Got it. "

No, my take is that we don't use just one effing metric to value defenders.

"Oh wow, interesting. Could you enlighten me on the updated YOY predictability? You must know because apparently my source "doesn't stand true today". "

It doesn't stand true BECAUSE THE DATA IS OUTDATED. It was written before the writer had any current OAA numbers, which is a vastly different stat for infielders than it was in May 2020. Infield OAA pre-2020 was useless. There's been much written about the new OAA for infielders, most notably by Tom Tango.

Simply put, we've had OAA data for infielders since 2020, or 2.5 seasons. There's not going to be enough data to gauge YOY reliability, yet. But if you're still running with the "4x less valuable" argument, it's outdated, purely based on the data being old and absent of all the new updates to infielder OAA, which wasn't even measured until 2020.

Base your research on current data and not outdated data, and then we'll talk. Until then, the Justin Dunbar article is as relevant as polio research from the 1920s.

It's also curious that someone who tried to dismiss Keith Law & Ben Clemens, who ignored the research from guys like Tom Tango opted to use outdated research from an unknown fantasy baseball writer with 850 Twitter followers instead.

Agree1 Disagree0

25 Nov 2022 15:28:23
Here's the funniest part of it all:

Justin Dunbar, who in May 2020 touted DRS over OAA for infielders (get ready for this) :

USES OAA TO CITE INFIELD DEFENSE IN 2022.

You seriously can't make this up.

Agree1 Disagree0

25 Nov 2022 17:32:22
“By all accounts, statistics as well as the opinion of those in the baseball industry, Brandon Crawford was the objectively better defender, despite being 8 years older than Correa”

So if DRS likes Correa more, that would render this statement false. Why is this hard to understand? Again, you started out referencing DEF for defense, and are now trying to lecture me on defensive metrics, lol.

You have no response to your track record. Stop digging your holes deeper with stuff like this. Terrible look.

Agree0 Disagree2

25 Nov 2022 18:43:51
So you're not going to admit you tried to pass off an obviously outdated and irrelevant article from a wannabe baseball writer (if you know poor old Justin, you might wanna tell him to work on his grammar if he aspires to be a serious writer), with information that was outdated just months after the article was written and tried to make it seem like you were the expert here?

For about the hundredth time on this here website you were caught making up stuff and you still act like you're intellectually superior to everyone around you.

And worse, when you're presented with the writings of RESPECTED baseball writers, you dismiss it. But yet, the work of Justin Dunbar (who I had to look up because I'd never heard of him) is superior.

Unless you're Justin Dunbar, it was a weird article to cite. But you held it up because it said what you wanted it to say and you clearly didn't bother looking into whether the data presented was still true to this day (hint: it wasn't) .

Agree0 Disagree0

25 Nov 2022 18:52:45
"you started out referencing DEF for defense, and are now trying to lecture me on defensive metrics"

Isn't it crazy that in just a matter of a few minutes worth of research, I was able to figure out that you are full of it?

The irony of you telling me to "Google it" led to your entire stance re: OAA vs. DRS actually being proven false. Through Googling it, I learned a lot about OAA, and it seems, yet again, your opinion fails to meet up with that of the industry opinion.

Conveniently, you haven't addressed the fact that you used outdated research to try and prove your stance.

Word of advice: Don't BS a BSer. To quote Walter Sobchak: "You're out of your element, Donnie. "

Agree1 Disagree0

25 Nov 2022 19:00:46
"The fact that a geriatric Tony La Russa strolled into San Fran, took the Giants lunch money, had Gabe helplessly deploying position players to pitch, and swept the Giants out of their own ballpark. And yet, here you are. "

The funny thing is: this is about the only thing the White Sox have on the Giants this year. Never mind they finished with the same record (LOL) and finished second in OBJECTIVELY the easiest division in baseball.

The Guardians clearly weren't even trying to win. The only MLB deal they signed last winter was a 3M deal with Bryan Shaw (LOL) . They won the division by 11 games, against the Los Angeles Dodgers of the American League (your terms) .

Congrats on sweeping the Giants! Your storming of the court proves you recognize their superiority over the White Sox.

Agree1 Disagree1

25 Nov 2022 21:39:15
Lol - “yeah you may have kicked our ass, but that’s the ONLY thing you have on our baseball team! ” Alright buddy.

Big names aren’t the only ones presenting good research. Amount of Twitter followers are a poor barometer for success, if you were unaware. Dunbar presented objective data and pretty sound analysis, but you seem to care about pundits and their opinions as if that actually matters.

“Keith Law, a journalist, doesn’t like Correa at short, so i’m going to take that to the grave”.

Agree to disagree I guess, but OAA isn’t bad for infielders, it’s just not as good as DRS according to the latest research. If you’d like to provide a similar analysis with updated data, feel free. But without any tangible comparison or reasons why you are taking this stance, it doesn’t really hold any merit. Otherwise, i’d expect the same result with OAA now given it’s essentially just a range metric.

I just presented a long list of instances where you were terribly incorrect (and this was pretty much just the last 12 months), and you say i’m out of my element. That’s pretty funny, and you adding to that list is too.

Agree1 Disagree0

27 Nov 2022 02:21:42
"If you’d like to provide a similar analysis with updated data, feel free. "

Again, since you ignored it (it's odd you continuously ignore the details that shut down your argument) : there's not enough data to determine "year over year" reliability. We've had just two full seasons of the new infield OAA on Statcast.

There's no possible way we can determine it's YOY reliability yet.

But the article you cited was written in MAY of the Year of our Lord TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY (May 2020). We didn't even have a single instance of the new infield OAA stat being measured yet. Not a single one.

If you want to use that information to prop up your argument, the burden is on you to get up-to-date information, not me. I'm not the one making your claims.

I simply pointed out, ACCURATELY, that the data you're citing is outdated now.

Not once have you even been willing to acknowledge the fact you cited outdated information. Either a) you're not educated enough to recognize it was outdated or b) you lack the proper respect for others to trust we'd see through this BS.

Also, you presented where I was *slightly* wrong about a mediocre reliever, who Andrew Friedman refused to give a spot on his playoff roster. You can write that off all you wish, but the Dodgers aren't just leaving "above average" or even good relievers

You intentionally misrepresented my Darin Ruf argument. Those aren't a "long list of instances". It's two cases, one of which isn't even a case (as I REPEATEDLY pointed out that the scope was limited to the 2021 season) .

Meanwhile, I've thrown in for consideration your Dallas Keuchel predictions (ROFL) . Your White Sox projections (LOL), calling them the "Dodgers of the AL" (LMAOOOOO) . You gave us easily one of the top 5 worst trades on this site. You cited the projections of the Giants and having 110 wRC+ hitters (they had 3 with 250+ PAs, not one) .

At the very least, my opinions were at least somewhat seen as in line with FO decisions. The Mets made a DRASTIC overpay for Darin Ruf, and gave up a guy who hit 142 wRC+ for the Giants in 2022, as well as other pieces. Other teams saw the huge value in Darin Ruf, especially at his cost.

Then, again, the Dodgers left Craig Kimbrel off their playoff roster. You can make the argument about the guys they picked over him, but you can't deny what's right before us: they left their $16M relief pitcher, who closed most of the season's games off the roster during the most important time of the baseball calendar. They did so because Craig Kimbrel is just not very good. (If he was as excellent as you prop him up to be, the Dodgers would have found him a spot. )

Your takes were nowhere near reality. The only team that gave Dallas Keuchel more than a few starts was the Chicago White Sox (LMAOOOOO), where he sported an impressive 7.88 ERA and had as many walks as he did strikeouts in 32 innings pitched. A few teams tried him out when he was essentially free, but even after a while, baseball gave up on him.

So your arrogant stance that David Stearns would absolutely want Dallas Keuchel as his 5th Starter is even more comical than it ever seemed.

You're this site's Leury Garcia: you look like you might be kind of brilliant, but when you're actually put to the test, you prove exactly what you are to everyone: a complete and total FRAUD.

Agree1 Disagree0

27 Nov 2022 04:25:54
I associated the White Sox with the Dodgers back in like 2020, Nathan. That analysis is outdated, per your logic.

Also, I was proposing Keuchel be dealt for a guy coming off of a -1.6 fWAR season for Pete's sake. Production-wise, they did about the same in 2022. If that's a huge judgement mistake by me for you, then I think I'm in pretty good shape. That's such a nothing-burger proposal, man.

Then, the pitcher who I defended as not being "complete garbage" has a solid season in LA (not worth $16 million, but still as I showed, top third of RPs in the league for the stuff that, you know, matters), and your "gotcha" detail is that he was left off the playoff roster of the team with the best pitching staff in the major leagues. Like, ok? Another massive score for you. Congrats.

You now, ironically, project Perry Minasian to give that "garbage" a sizable AAV heading into 2023. Interesting.

Meanwhile, you're thrown shade at K-BB% (the whole Effross, Milner, Adam comment is one of the funniest posts in hindsight that this site has ever seen. Boy, did you fall flat on your face there) and FIP as evaluation tools for pitchers while using DEF as your preferred defensive metric.

"There's no possible way we can determine it's YOY reliability yet.

But the article you cited was written in MAY of the Year of our Lord TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY (May 2020). We didn't even have a single instance of the new infield OAA stat being measured yet. Not a single one. "

I'm sorry, but these statements are tangibly false.

Einstein - we have 7 seasons of infield OAA data. Log on to Baseball Savant and see for yourself. Since the stat is the same as it's been (for infielders and outfielders, respectively) since its debut in 2020 when Dunbar had 4 seasons of data at his disposal, we have no reason to believe that defenders have fundamentally changed over the last 2.5 seasons to warrant that analysis moot. If you have any shred of evidence to suggest otherwise, I'm all ears. Infield OAA is still not outperforming DRS, I'm sorry, and Keith Law's opinions can't save you here.

The burden of proof is on you to disprove what I am citing. That's how it works. You have brought zero evidence to the table to suggest that the research is outdated - nothing. But to be honest, there's no reason to suggest major differences because 4 years of data is solid - we're talking about the Law of Large Numbers.

Read Tango's 2020 post on OAA once or twice - it's essentially a range metric, which works great for outfielders but isn't optimized for infielders. It makes sense.

Again, when this thread started, the metrics you chose to justify a defensive claim for Crawford v. Correa were DEF (the most useless stat on FanGraphs) and UZR. Then you learned about OAA in the process of arguing, jumped ship on DEF and are now feverously defending infield OAA - but yeah, I'm the fraud here.

You're a novice with these kinds of metrics - I'm not, and that's the evident circumstance.

Agree0 Disagree1

27 Nov 2022 11:17:35
"Einstein - we have 7 seasons of infield OAA data"

Holy F*** my dude. The Infield OAA data isn't even relevant as the entire statistic has changed since the start of the 2020 season.

"The burden of proof is on you to disprove what I am citing. "

I did, by proving, on MULTIPLE accounts, the outdated statistic you are using. The point you used is based on outdated information, therefore, it does not stand. How is that so hard for you to comprehend?

"Read Tango's 2020 post on OAA once or twice"

LMAOOOOO. I was the one who even cited Tom Tango for you. Sorry you missed that as you were stroking your faux-intellectual eggplant emoji. And he spends tons of time discussing the range factors for infielders, did you even read it? LOL.

Anyway, I had a pretty good feeling you weren't going to actually address the fact that Dunbar's data was outdated. And you're actually defending the fact that you believed Dallas Keuchel would EASILY make the Brewers rotation in 2022.

There's an old adage: a hit dog will holler. And you've been doing a lot of hollering, Benji.

Agree0 Disagree0

27 Nov 2022 11:43:02
Speaking of K-BB%, I did some looking into it's reliability, here's a fun fact for you:

From 2019-2022, only 2 (two) relievers show up in the Top 20 for MLB relievers (20 IP minimum) for K-BB% each year: Liam Hendriks and Edwin Diaz.

There are just seven (7) others who found their way onto that list more than twice. Out of 40 spots, there are 31 unique names, meaning over the last four seasons, you have just 22.5% of your top relievers according to K-BB% repeat at least once. You have FIVE PERCENT that find their way on the list every season.

You speak a lot of year-over-year reliability, and this shows it's everything but. The threshold to make the top 20 each year doesn't change. The lowest Top 20 K-BB% during that span was 24.7%, the highest was 26.1%.

Any team trying to build a case on a reliever because he had a good K-BB% in one season is asking for trouble. It's, frankly, a useless stat when trying to determine how a reliever might do the next season, as we have almost no cases of top relievers per K-BB% continuing to be the top. (And the only ones that do are making more than $18M in 2023).

It's a nothing-burger stat. You tried to toss it into the ring to prove to me that Craig Kimbrel was somehow an elite reliever.

Also fun fact: Craig Kimbrel's name appears just one time (2021).

You also claim, "the whole Effross, Milner, Adam comment is one of the funniest posts in hindsight that this site has ever seen. Boy, did you fall flat on your face there"

Those guys' K-BB% dropped by an average of 8% from 2021 to 2022. Not a single one of them had better rates the year after. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

It was a useless stat when you tried to make it look like some "gotcha" stat, it's a uselsss stat now.

Agree0 Disagree0

27 Nov 2022 12:28:27
And if we want to talk about horrible takes, we could deep dive into the history books with your Avisail Garcia take (ROFL), but we don't need to go that far back.

We just need to address you pointing out that the Giants were 5-6 years away from contending and that the White Sox were such a superior organization at this point in time.

History has, yet again, not been kind to your outlandish White Sox homerism. I'll prove it:

Since 2020 (I'm literally ignoring the bad year for the White Sox, since, according to you, it somehow doesn't count), here is the record for the Chicago Dodgers, I mean Chicago White Sox:

209-175 (.544). That's pretty good if I'm being honest. There's no way the Giants, who are a half-decade or more away from contending would be better than that, right? Right? RIGGHHHTT?

Since 2020, the non-contending Giants are 217-167 (.565).

Oh.

Surely it must be a fluke! They must play in an easy division with the Dodgers and Padres. They certainly don't play in a division with the Guardians, who won the division, despite their only MLB free agent signing last offseason was Bryan Shaw.

"Okay, Nate. But 2023, that's the year it'll be proven! "

ZiPS recent early projections, since you're into that kind of thing:

Chicago White Sox: 76-86.
San Francisco Giants: 83-79.

Whatever "take" you think I said that was bad, this will eternally be worse. Sometimes I feel bad for bringing this up, because it was truly that embarrassing of a take for you, and every season that passes, it becomes more laughable.

This is easily 100x worse than any Craig Kimbrel take I've made.

So keep trying to "dunk" on me with what you perceived to be bad takes. This one will be eternally worse.

Agree0 Disagree0

27 Nov 2022 21:11:16
OAA didn’t change man, they just added it for infielders in 2020. It previously didn’t exist. You’re confused here. The metadata exists back to 2016 (and thus can be used), there was never a fundamental change to the metric, it was simply newly released for infielders.

“Those guys' K-BB% dropped by an average of 8% from 2021 to 2022. Not a single one of them had better rates the year after. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

It was a useless stat when you tried to make it look like some "gotcha" stat, it's a uselsss stat now. ”

You’re telling me that the relationship between walks and strikeouts, 2 of the core components of FIP, do not matter for RPs? At this point, you might just be a bonafide idiot, or it’s just the overwhelming cognitive dissonance (or just trolling) . The stat absolutely matters, and will matter even more now with more BIPs turning into hits with the shift ban. I’m guessing you’re in the “exit velo doesn’t matter for hitters” camp too?

Who cares if their K-BB%s dropped? They all had great seasons overall. That was my point. It’s a good way to find hidden gems, and the three you sarcastically referenced last year turned out to be really good arms. I used it as justification that Kimbrel wasn’t washed, and 2022 showed that Kimbrel wasn’t in fact washed and that it proved useful for guys like Milner, Effross, and Adam too. How funny! Just take the L, there’s no way to can spin this one (though I admire the determination to try an spin even your worst losses) .

Thanks for taking the time to show that reliever performance is fickle. Groundbreaking discovery! But if you want to predict 2023 reliever performance, K-BB% is one of the best metrics you can use, especially because pitchers have almost zero control over BABIP. I guess you’d like to leverage ERA and xFIP more? My goodness.

You’re now referencing team ZiPS projections in November (lol), the same system that I referenced when my take was that the Giants were very unlikely to be anywhere close to 2021, and you called me out for that, as if it was my personal projection and not Dan Szymborski’s projection system.

Rosters are immensely incomplete, and fact that you think the current team projection means anything proves my previous point that you don’t really understand how these projection systems work. It’s now blatantly obvious.

I don’t want to keep rubbing this in, but The White Sox dog-walked the Giants in San Francisco last year. I really don’t care about the team record comparison since 2020. Your Giants had a chance to prove themselves and they got pummeled. It’s really cut and dry. The team comparisons should stop, especially when there’s no need from you to bring it up after what took place H2H. Head-to-head matchups are the best bragging rights, i’m afraid, especially when the teams literally finished with the same record.

I’ve already conceded that I was originally too harsh on the Giants contention window, predicting that it would start in the 2024-25 range. But if they’re unable to crack the postseason again in ‘23, it’ll look even more like 2021 was a complete fluke and I wasn’t in fact that far off.

Agree0 Disagree1

28 Nov 2022 12:59:38
"OAA didn’t change man, they just added it for infielders in 2020. It previously didn’t exist. You’re confused here"

Wait, so in May 2020, Justin Dunbar wrote about the reliability of an infield stat that didn't even exist at the time? That's the context of his point? Thank you for further proving my point about the data you presented.

"You’re now referencing team ZiPS projections in November (lol), the same system that I referenced when my take was that the Giants were very unlikely to be anywhere close to 2021, and you called me out for that, as if it was my personal projection and not Dan Szymborski’s projection system. "

I'm referencing them because you care so deeply about them and think so mightily of them. Hence why I said, "since you're into that kind of thing"

Curious how ZiPS projections are gospel truth, until it makes the White Sox a lesser team than you hoped. Of course the rosters are incomplete. It's also far more likely that the projected-83 win Giants will add more significant pieces and spend more money in FA this winter than the White Sox, who just dropped 8M on a pitcher with a 4.98 FIP (5.04 as a starter) . That ranked him the 8th worst starter with minimum 100 IP in 2022. I'm sure that'll bring them to at least 77 wins LMAO.

If you believe the White Sox will bring in more impact players than the Giants, then great.

"fact that you think the current team projection means anything proves my previous point that you don’t really understand how these projection systems work. "

From Dan's article, "These standings represent the best estimates ZiPS can make at this point about where a team sits in the league’s pecking order, based solely on the players currently under contract with the team. It’s hard to get where you want to go if you don’t know where you’re starting. "

Again, you sang ZiPS' praises when it made the White Sox look like a 90+ win team and the Giants a 75-win team, but now that it's reversed, "it doesn't mean anything? "

Speaking of cognitive dissonance.

And again, if you need to feel that a 3-game series is enough to prove some kind of dominance, then I assume you're willing to acknowledge the Arizona Diamondbacks as much better, as they swept your White Sox on their home field?

Because, according to your standards, " Your [White Sox] had a chance to prove themselves and they got pummeled. It’s really cut and dry. The team comparisons should stop, especially when there’s no need from you to bring it up after what took place H2H. Head-to-head matchups are the best bragging rights, i’m afraid. "

So that settles it. H2H records is all that matters. The Diamondbacks are simply better than the White Sox. Cut and dry.

Oh what's that? ZiPS has Arizona as 7 games better than the White Sox as well?

This is awkward, Albert.

Agree1 Disagree0

28 Nov 2022 13:03:05
Hi, I'm here to translate Chi Sox's posts so you can see what he really means:

"I’ve already conceded that I was originally too harsh on the Giants contention window, predicting that it would start in the 2024-25 range. But if they’re unable to crack the postseason again in ‘23, it’ll look even more like 2021 was a complete fluke and I wasn’t in fact that far off. "

Translation: "I know I was wrong but I refuse to admit I was wrong. In fact, I'm doubling down on my wrongness despite the history on my predictions being absolutely laughable on this website. "

Agree2 Disagree0

28 Nov 2022 15:08:26
"Wait, so in May 2020, Justin Dunbar wrote about the reliability of an infield stat that didn't even exist at the time? That's the context of his point? Thank you for further proving my point about the data you presented. "

Alright, yep, bonafide idiot or troll. Make your selection, folks. Holy hell man, infield OAA was released in January 2020 covering the 2016-2019 seasons based on the articles that YOU also referenced. Dunbar obviously couldn't analyze a metric that didn't exist, hence why he wrote the article in May. Understand now? Good grief. Put your tail between your legs and walk home, little guy.

"And again, if you need to feel that a 3-game series is enough to prove some kind of dominance, then I assume you're willing to acknowledge the Arizona Diamondbacks as much better, as they swept your White Sox on their home field? "

Hey man, If I'd been going back and forth with a Dbacks fan like this, I'd certainly keep my mouth shut about that team - though they did finish 7 games worse, so not the same premise, but again, valiant recovery effort by you here.

I really like Arizona's future outlook too - probably the third best in that division to be honest. I'd be careful.

"Again, you sang ZiPS' praises"

Referencing a certain projection system is not "singing its praises. " If you want to put any stock in the ZiPS team-level projections in November, you're entitled to do so. Knock yourself out.

Nice to se you generate yet another account to agree with you, Nate. Maybe you, "Translator", and "DavidStearnsGM" can all grab a drink sometime.

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Nov 2022 15:58:44
"Alright, yep, bonafide idiot or troll. Make your selection, folks. Holy hell man, infield OAA was released in January 2020 covering the 2016-2019 seasons based on the articles that YOU also referenced. Dunbar obviously couldn't analyze a metric that didn't exist, hence why he wrote the article in May. Understand now? Good grief. Put your tail between your legs and walk home, little guy. "

I'm not criticizing Justin Dunbar. He wrote his article with the information he had at the time.

I'm criticizing YOU for using it, because it's obviously outdated and the point of "OAA having 4x more predictive power for OF than it does for infield" was based on pre-2020 data.

So when you try to dismiss the OAA comparison because "it's not as predictive for infielders", you're basing your dismissal on information that doesn't account for the 2020-2022 data.

It's no surprise that almost every respected baseball writer cites OAA for infielders, including Carlos Correa as they discuss his poor defensive season. Few of them cite DRS directly. But I'm sure we should just ignore all the experts and go with Chi Sox's opinion on the matter. That's what Chi Sox prefers: ignore information that hurts his argument, even if it's by guys he loves to cite when it helps his argument.

Again, Dan Szymborski's ZiPS projections are useless now, despite your consistent use of ZiPS to make your arguments on this site.

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Nov 2022 16:30:23
"I'm criticizing YOU for using it, because it's obviously outdated and the point of "OAA having 4x more predictive power for OF than it does for infield" was based on pre-2020 data.

So when you try to dismiss the OAA comparison because "it's not as predictive for infielders", you're basing your dismissal on information that doesn't account for the 2020-2022 data. '

And my point like 8 replies ago, was that unless there's been a major fundamental change in how the stat has been calculated (there has not been), or a major fundamental change in how defenders defend (there has been none that I'm aware of, because OAA takes shifts in account), there's no reason to believe that the last 3 seasons of defensive data would show major holistic differences when compared to the previous 4. Again, if you'd like to bring some other evidence to the table that would suggest otherwise, be my guest. But studies can't just be labeled "old" (in any field, not just sports) after a couple years when there is no evidence of material changes.

And again, I don't care about what the Keith Law, Jim Bowden, Jon Heyman, and Bob Nightengales of the baseball industry reference when looking at defense. That's their opinions and their prerogative - I'm coming with objective data as to why using one is more effective. Still, OAA for infielders is not complete garbage like UZR (and therefore, DEF) for infielders, and I've said this numerous times too. OAA is a range metric, though, which makes it make perfect sense as to why it works a lot better for outfielders than infielders. There are a lot more variables on the infield.

So when you say "all credible stats say that Crawford is the better defender", all I'm saying is that statement is blatantly false, as data tells us that DRS is the best metric for infielders and it like Correa better. Still, you can do a lot worse than referencing infield OAA, like using DEF where you started. Just keep that in mind.

Glad we could (hopefully) put your confusions to bed.

"Dan Szymborski's ZiPS projections are useless now"

Nope, don't twist my words. They're largely useless on November 28th - that's my stance.

When comparing our teams, I reference the most recent H2H matchups, and you reference November team-level ZiPS projections.

You tell me who's grasping here.

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Nov 2022 16:37:12
And honestly, I'd put money on the fact that DRS is referenced more often than OAA in baseball blogs, regardless of position.

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Nov 2022 17:14:52
"Nope, don't twist my words. They're largely useless on November 28th - that's my stance. "

LMAO. Again, anyone who has been on this site and read your nonsense knows exactly what your tune would be if the numbers were flipped.

"When comparing our teams, I reference the most recent H2H matchups, and you reference November team-level ZiPS projections. "

Ahhh yes. I totally forgot that a random 3-game sample means so effing much, more than, say, multiple years worth of information?

Ignore it all and look at just three games. That's it!

Also, I didn't just reference November ZiPS. I referenced their win-loss total over since 2020. I limited it to 2020, since we can't look at anything prior to that for Rick Hahn, as it doesn't count (yet, it counted that he traded Sale, Eaton, Quintana, and made other moves you bragged about) . I've referenced playoff wins. Interesting how the team that's a half-decade+ from contending has the same amount of playoff wins since 2020 as your White Sox.

Consider this, during the wide-open window of a "stacked White Sox" team, they lost more games than the Giants who were clearly rebuilding. How pathetic is that?

But ignore it all and look at a 3-game sample size.

Why should we do this? BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY THING CHI SOX HAS.

Agree3 Disagree0


MLB Rumors 2


MLB Trade Rumors 3


MLB Rumors 4


Cell phone only version of this site: https://mobile.mlb-trade-rumors.com

 
Log In or Register to post

User
Pass
Remember me

Forgot Pass