MLB Trade Rumors Member Posts

 

Chi Sox's Profile

Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded

No Profile Picture uploaded

Team:


Where from:


Favourite player:


Best team moment:


Interests:


Timezone:




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

 

 

To Chi Sox's last 5 rumours posts

 

To Chi Sox's last 5 talk posts

 

To Chi Sox's last 5 rumour replies

 

To Chi Sox's last 5 talk replies

 

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

 

25 Nov 2021 14:00:58
Free Agents predictions for fun:

Correa: Tigers
C.Seager: Yankees
Bryant: Mets
Semien: Mariners
Freeman: Braves
Ray: Blue Jays
Scherzer: Dodgers
Gausman: Angles
Stroman: Mets
Marte: Astros
Story: Rangers
Taylor: Giants
Baez: Angels
Castellanos: Marlins
Suzuki: Mariners
Kershaw: Rangers
Jansen: Blue Jays
R. Iglesias: Angels
Rizzo: Yankees
Conforto: White Sox
J. Gray: Yankees
Schwarber: Red Sox
Cruz: Brewers
Canha: Guardians
Neris: Royals
Kluber: Twins
Rodon: Rays
Pineda: Twins
Grienke: Braves
Knebel: Phillies
McHugh: Dodgers
D. Duffy: Brewers
Raley: Astros
K. Seager: Blue Jays
Soler: Phillies
E. Rosario: Braves
Kikuchi: Cubs
Avi Garcia: Guardians
E. Escobar: Nationals
Pham: Reds
L. Garcia: Blue Jays
J. Kelly: Phillies
Pederson: A's
Simmons: Reds
Tepera: Mets
Gomes: Guardians
Villar: Nationals
Cobb: Giants
C. Hernandez: Red Sox
M. Duffy: A's
J. Iglesias: Astros
McCutchen: Padres
Galvis: Rockies
C. Frazier: Cubs
Pillar: Tigers
O. Herrera: Rangers
Tyler Anderson: Reds
Calhoun: Rockies
Bundy: Yankees
Cueto: Tigers
Chafin: Red Sox
Harrison: Guardians
Odor: A's
Solano: Orioles
Gardner: Phillies
Dickerson: Nationals
Vogt: White Sox
Tsutsugo: Pirates
Fowler: Mets
Eaton: Pirates
Moreland: A's
Carpenter: Rockies
Davies: Orioles
Smyly: Rockies
Wacha: A's
Kim: Reds
Hamels: Angels
Paxton: Orioles
JA Happ: Nationals
Lester: Mets
C. Martinez: Pirates
M. Franco: Dbacks
M. Gonzalez: Cubs
B. Anderson: Rangers
T. Shaw: Orioles

and some trade destinations:

Olsen: Dodgers
Chapman: Rays
Segura: White Sox
Kiermaier: Phillies
DeJong: Twins
Ahmed: Phillies
Margot: Braves
Wendle: Cubs
Gregorius: Dbacks

Manaea: White Sox
Bassitt: Giants
Kimbrel: Phillies
Sonny Gray: Mariners

Chi Sox

1.) 27 Nov 2021 16:03:33
I can’t fully express how laughably bad a Craig Kimbrel for Jean Segura trade is for Philadelphia.


2.) 27 Nov 2021 19:06:16
Rumor is it would be Kimbrel for Segura AND Alvarado, lol. Kimbrel is a top-10, top-15 RP and the Phillies have Stott knocking at the door. Given also how bad they need bullpen help, it makes sense for them. I know you absolutely hate Kimbrel tho.


3.) 28 Nov 2021 00:03:22
LOL. "#White Sox have interest in Jean Segura and Jose Alvarado from the #Phillies in a potential Craig Kimbrel trade. " From "MLB Nerds" twitter.

This is right up there with that Bennett Karoll "rumor" you believed. It's so outlandish that I'd expect even you to reject it.

IF the Phillies trade for Craig Kimbrel, I could see Didi Gregorius heading out, but even then, the White Sox would need to add money or prospects.

And if Rick Hahn really thinks he could pull this off (I don't believe he actually does, you just believed a made up rumor from a Twitter account with 3K followers), then he might be clinically insane.

I'm not the president of the Rick Hahn fan club, but even ole' Rick "Give Adam Eaton $8M" Hahn isn't this dumb.


4.) 28 Nov 2021 00:32:45
Also, in what world is Craig Kimbrel a "top 10 RP"? Did you take a time machine to 2016?

We're talking about a guy who, from 2019-2021 had a 3.67 ERA, and that's low because of 4 months of 2021.

Sans the 4-month span of him playing with the Cubs in 2021, his ERA from 2019-2021 is 5.64, with a FIP nearing 7.00, a 2.44 HR/ 9, and 5.19 BB/ 9.

Remove the name and the acquisition cost from the equation every contending team in baseball would DFA/ option that reliever. Not Rick Hahn. He picked up a 16M option on him!


5.) 28 Nov 2021 03:00:04
Kimbrel had the 6th best fWAR, 4th best K-BB%, 9th best xwOBA. He's pretty firmly in the top-10 to 15 RP conversation. lol. cry.

"Remove the name and the acquisition cost from the equation every contending team in baseball would DFA/ option that reliever. "

Guys with almost 33 K-BB% don't get DFA'd my man. It just simply isn't true. Try again.

"Sans the 4-month span of him playing with the Cubs in 2021."

"Sans a 412 PA stretch from Darin Ruf, he really sucks. "

"IF the Phillies trade for Craig Kimbrel, I could see Didi Gregorius heading out, but even then, the White Sox would need to add money or prospects. "

If you actually, genuinely believe this statement and aren't trolling, you really just don't know the game. This is idiotic. C'mon dude.

Hahn is going to get really nice value for Kimbrel (if he is in fact traded), and you're going to be absolutely furious, which I find hilarious.

Also, nothing on here is as outlandish as you creating an additional account so someone would agree with you. That's just plain sad, David Stearns. And this isn't the first time, astonishingly.

It's still very telling that you think Hahn missing on Adam Eaton on a one-year flyer is a big "gotcha moment". If that's what your evidence is for him being a lousy GM in recent years, then you may want to re-evaluate your stance.


6.) 29 Nov 2021 14:43:45
Literally no one is crying, except maybe me crying laughing at you thinking that Craig Kimbrel, who, over the last 3 seasons, has been good for a span of 4 months, is somehow a Top 15 reliever in baseball.

And that you think that the best you can get for a Top 15 reliever is an overpaid middle infielder.

You and I both know that Craig Kimbrel is hot garbage. And the mental gymnastics you're doing to convince yourself otherwise is precious. He's an awful reliever and it was a comical mistake for Rick Hahn to pick up that option, and now, White Sox fans want out of it.

Hint: If you had a competent GM, it would have cost $1M to get rid of him. Heck, they could have easily signed a "Top 15 RP" for around 5-7M AAV, if even that.

But please, post another "rumor" from a Twitter account with 3K who pretends to have sources. I'm sure it's super substantive!


7.) 29 Nov 2021 16:34:08
"You and I both know that Craig Kimbrel is hot garbage. And the mental gymnastics you're doing to convince yourself otherwise is precious. "

Apparently referencing commonly used pitching stats and everyday comprehensive metrics like fWAR is now considered mental gymnastics. Your rationale is literally "trust me, bro - Kimbrel stinks'.

Your plummet on this site is unreal. You've resorted to fighting against numbers. It's a really tough scene.

Mind you, Nate, you are the same person who fought tooth and nail to argue that Darin Ruf was a better baseball player than Jose Abreu after a good 400 PA stretch.


8.) 30 Nov 2021 15:51:42
These projections are really going well for you LMAOOOO.


9.) 30 Nov 2021 18:37:22
Projections like these are tremendously difficult. Get one wrong, and a domino effect can start, especially with the top guys. That said, you correctly predicted only three a year ago. I predicted destinations for almost 100 players and you're laughing at them 5 days later, lol.

I've gotten Tsutsugo and Cobb correct and Knebel may be close.


10.) 30 Nov 2021 19:17:54
It probably helps that the Alex Cobb signing was rumored last week, well before this post, don't you think?

And no, it's not "that hard", I'm sitting comfortably in the top 20 over at the MLBTR contest.

In fairness, though, this is probably quite difficult for you. You seem to have a knack for not getting predictions right around here.


11.) 01 Dec 2021 14:38:49
Frazier to the Cubs, just like that.

You're top 20 on the MLBTR and you apparently posted my take in a renowned actuarial subreddit that proves me wrong.

Try sharing some links so we don't have to take your worthless word for the things you say.

"it's not "that hard""

You were 3 for 20 last year bub. LOL.


12.) 01 Dec 2021 19:23:11
"Nate Skomski" on the MLBTR leaderboard my dude. Dropped down after the Javier Baez deal, but overall, 7/ 25.

Go check r/ actuary, on a post back around November 4th. I've tried to submit the link multiple times and it never gets posted, but it was on there as of the time of posting this comment.

And while we're waiting for links, I need to see a reliable source on that Segura-for-Kimbrel "rumor". Not a tweet from MLB Nerds, not from Bennett Karoll, but from someone who actually has a history of journalism and making these calls.

Please, when you have one, send it my way.


13.) 01 Dec 2021 20:54:26
Knebel to Philly. Check.


14.) 01 Dec 2021 21:09:02
Nobody "credible" has mentioned Kimbrel for Segura (at least I don't think), but that doesn't mean I can't propose it. Me calling it a rumor based on anonymous account was my response to you over-hyperbolizing the proposal.

You claim Kimbrel is trash despite stats that say the exact opposite.

I checked r/ actuary - nothing there even remotely related to baseball. Maybe it magically got deleted. What did you title the post?


15.) 02 Dec 2021 14:17:20
"Correlation and Causation in Baseball Argument". That was the title of the post. So, if it's not there for you, I can't help you any further.

As far as Craig Kimbrel goes: the dude was good for exactly a 4-month stretch. 2019: hot garbage. 2020: hot garbage. Second half of 2021: hot garbage.

In other words, over the last 3 seasons, Kimbrel was good for about 38% of his innings, and absolutely terrible for the other 62%.

From 2019-2021, he was worth 1.2 WAR. His WAR in the first half of 2021 with the Cubs represented 183% of that total!

183% of his production was based on 38% of all his innings. The other 62%? He was worth -1.0 WAR.

You're trying to tell everyone that Craig Kimbrel is still great because he had a solid 4-month span of baseball, and you're hoping we don't look at what he did with the White Sox, or with the Cubs in 2019 and 2020. Kimbrel reverted to that same pitcher, almost overnight.

And for as good as Craig Kimbrel is, you and the other White Sox fans on Twitter and other places seem hellbent on getting rid of him! Just months ago, you were touting the importance of having a dominant bullpen, and now, you're suggesting they sacrifice that dominance for a role they can fill for dirt cheap in the likes of Donovan Solano or Josh Harrison (who probably have as much value as Segura, just on potential contract alone) .

You don't trade an elite, top-15 relief pitcher for a 32-year-old 2B making 14M a year.

For as cocky as you act on here, the fact you don't know this is quite embarrassing. I'm actually embarrassed for you.


16.) 02 Dec 2021 14:55:47
Here's a question for you:

If you're looking at investing in stock, and you see that the company made $1 billion last year, would you invest?

Before you answer, some further information. The company made $1 billion dollars from January to June, and exactly zero dollars from July to December. Still interested?

More information: the company was actually LOSING money, in fact, close to $500M from the two years prior. Now how interested are you?

I'd reckon you wouldn't be very interested, and for good reason.

This is Craig Kimbrel. He was really, really, really good for a brief period, but overall, he's been really bad. And trying to sell him like he made a billion dollars, thus he's worth a billion now is a really bad take, even for your standards, James.


17.) 02 Dec 2021 20:25:13
Nothing like a good ole' Natedog analogy to really drive home a bad take.

It is absolutely astonishing how you are saying that Kimbrel has only been good over a four month stretch and therefore is horrible but wholeheartedly believe that Darin Ruff is better than Jose Abreu. You will really believe anything as long as it benefits your argument and makes the Chicago White Sox look bad.

Kimbrel had a very good 2021 season.


 

 

18 Nov 2021 19:17:37
Uh Oh!

Wander Franco might be close to a pre-arb extension with Tampa Bay. Will Erik Neander have to address the associated racism that comes with giving an early-20s minority superstar $100 million?

This also reflects poorly on those that will continue to support the Rays - low moral character.

We thank Natedog for bringing this travesty to light.

Chi Sox

1.) 18 Nov 2021 21:12:57
Dude, give it a rest.


2.) 18 Nov 2021 21:27:10
Learning from Rick Hahn, who revolutionized this racist act. Man, he truly has infested the league.

Next thing you know, these teams are going to hire drunk-drivers as managers!


3.) 19 Nov 2021 14:36:40
There it is, the admission that Hahn's success has had an effect on the league. We're done here.


4.) 21 Nov 2021 12:18:24
Yes, Hahn's racism has so far infected the Major Leagues.

Indeed, I agree. We're done here.


5.) 23 Nov 2021 17:02:29
Reportedly $223 million for Wander, wow. The racist Rays should have kept him at the league minimum for his own good and not forced him to sign this massive deal.


6.) 23 Nov 2021 18:14:02
You understand there’s a colossal difference between $50M and $223M, right?


7.) 24 Nov 2021 16:20:26
Approx. $173 million. What's your point?


 

 

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

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

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

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

4. Trade #1:

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

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

5. Trade #2:

White Sox Get:
2B/OF Ketel Marte

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

6. Trade #3:

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

Brewers Get:
LHP Dallas Keuchel

7. Trade #4

White Sox Get:
RHP Tyler Kinley

Rockies Get:
DH Yermin Mercedes
LHP Gil Luna

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

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

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

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

Payroll = ~$179 million

Thoughts?

Chi Sox

1.) 14 Nov 2021 19:21:55
Gausman has stated that he grew up a Giants fan and wants to play for them, I think it's best to project he'll play there until the Giants move on.

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


2.) 14 Nov 2021 19:24:42
Also, that's Milwaukee paying $6.5M for Kimbrel, after the salaries clear. If the Brewers are honestly considering if they are willing to pay Josh Hader $10M, then there's very little chance they'll take on $6.5M for Kimbrel.


3.) 15 Nov 2021 13:01:17
Kimbrel goes to Tampa, not Milwaukee. Milwaukee makes Hader available every off season just in case someone wants to offer a massive overpay.

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


4.) 15 Nov 2021 13:13:20
You're right, I misread the trade. I think it's even less likely the Brewers would want Keuchel. Bradley was a bad signing, but there's a better chance he'll be worth his salary than Keuchel would.

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

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


5.) 15 Nov 2021 13:47:12
You really think it's more likely that Bradley is worth $17.5 million than Keuchel is worth $18 million (or even $22 million with the added cash)? . I don't. I think there are more signs pointing to a Kuechel bounce back than Bradley, even if I'm not too confident in ether.

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


6.) 15 Nov 2021 16:28:43
Milwaukee has a really solid rotation as it stands. They could use depth, but I'm not sure dropping 18M on pitching depth is ideal for them.


7.) 15 Nov 2021 17:40:15
Logic here is that Milwaukee would essentially pay Keuchel $22 million for 2022 who's projected 1.2 WAR by Steamer ($18.3 million per win)

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

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


8.) 15 Nov 2021 21:19:07
I guess my point is: who is more likely to overcome a really bad season: JBJ or Keuchel? JBJ has elements to his game that are more likely, in my opinion, to overcome his projection. I don't think Keuchel reaches 1 WAR next season.

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


9.) 15 Nov 2021 22:46:22
IDK where you're getting that JBJ is making 17.5M in 2022. Spotrac, B-R, Cots all have him at around 9.5-11M (B-R and Cots are 11M) . That's a sizable difference.


10.) 16 Nov 2021 04:31:55
I'd say the $8 million buyout for 2023 is fairly inevitable, no? It becomes a $4 million decision as otherwise he'd make $12 million, so I guess if he gets back to 2020 JBJ it's a possibility, but nothing in his profile suggests that.

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


11.) 16 Nov 2021 13:42:59
You were including the buyout into that number. That's where the gap was. Thanks for clarifying that.

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

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

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


12.) 17 Nov 2021 16:59:43
Chi Sox,

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


13.) 17 Nov 2021 17:10:20
One last thing, you say that the White Sox are projected to pay Keuchel 18.3M per win, while the Brewers are paying JBJ $175M per win.

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

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


14.) 17 Nov 2021 17:12:00
Then again, the White Sox gave Adam Eaton $8M last season. So I'm not exactly accusing them of being able to make good decisions.


15.) 18 Nov 2021 14:41:42
Yes. The whole "my guy is clearly more valuable, but give me your guy instead" argument lacks conviction.

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

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

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


16.) 18 Nov 2021 17:11:41
I think it would be better for both parties if Keuchel is with a different club in 2022. He's was not happy about not making the PS roster and his comments in 2020 about having to "teach the rest of the team how to win", given the circumstances surrounding when he got his ring, came off poorly to most of his teammates. Therefore I think from the Sox's standpoint it's worth it to take on a worse player and save only $4.5 million in the process to offload Keuchel.

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

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

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


17.) 18 Nov 2021 18:59:05
I said "essentially". Jackie Bradley, Jr. will make 9.5M in 2022, and his 8M buyout (which is a 99% sure thing at this rate) would factor into the 2023 payroll. That's 17.5M paid out over two years. Or one year of playing, and one year of dead money. However you prefer to look at it, the Brewers aren't paying out 17.5M in one season. They can space that out over two seasons, which is ideal.

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

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

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

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


18.) 19 Nov 2021 14:49:09
"They can space that out over two seasons, which is ideal. "

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

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

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

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


19.) 21 Nov 2021 12:30:41
"Stearns and the Brewers would probably be all over this"

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

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

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

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

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

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


20.) 22 Nov 2021 02:13:33
Keuchel getting to 2.8 WAR in 2022 is much more likely than JBJ getting to 2.8 WAR. I don't think this is even a hot take. Keuchel's floor is probably 1 WAR, barring injury. JBJ could have to seriously fight to be replacement level.

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


 

 

04 Nov 2021 05:05:01
Rays offseason.

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

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

3. DFA Mike Brosseau

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Payroll = ~$70 million

Chi Sox

 

 

03 Nov 2021 16:05:45
Random note:

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

Interesting.

Chi Sox

1.) 05 Nov 2021 14:03:45
Yes, it happens. First time since 2015 that a team with a losing record against .500 teams made it to the World Series.

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


2.) 05 Nov 2021 14:28:17
Emulate Anthopoulos more racist pre arb extensions like those of Albies and Acuna? How dare he.


3.) 05 Nov 2021 14:33:27
This is a good example of how history shows (look it up) that there is zero causation between win% against .500+ opponents in the regular season and playoff success.

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


4.) 05 Nov 2021 16:00:41
Birds of a feather stick together!


5.) 07 Nov 2021 12:17:56
"It only took a couple months for it to be proven bs. "

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

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

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


6.) 08 Nov 2021 10:47:42
No it wasn't because of one instance. The R^2 of playoff win% regressed on vs. > .500 win% in the regular season is between .2 and .3 SINCE 1960.

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


7.) 08 Nov 2021 10:49:05
In other words, only 20-30% of the variance in playoff success is explained by regular season win% vs. > .500 teams.

Not a lot.


8.) 08 Nov 2021 13:41:59
Hey man, whatever you got to do to convince yourself that the White Sox stood a chance this year!

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

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

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


9.) 10 Nov 2021 04:14:33
Well when you pick a random dependent variable to fit what ever narrative you’re pushing, otherwise known as the Natedog Special, you can really “prove” anything to be true.


10.) 06 Nov 2021 16:04:38
"Oh my gosh guys! His evidence was wrong one time! Therefore, it's wrong all the time! "

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

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

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

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


11.) 09 Nov 2021 13:49:44
Also, if you can't see why there's a direct correlation between how you play against .500 teams in the regular season to help understand how you might play against them in the postseason (every postseason team has a .500 record or better), then I'm really not sure how to help you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


12.) 15 Nov 2021 13:21:08
"Also, if you can't see why there's a direct correlation between how you play against .500 teams in the regular season to help understand how you might play against them in the postseason (every postseason team has a .500 record or better), then I'm really not sure how to help you. "

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're out of your element.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


14.) 18 Nov 2021 13:51:38
For what it's worth, your linear regression model argument got posted to an insurance/ actuary subreddit. It's getting quite the attention, and not in the good way, Leonard.

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

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

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

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

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

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


15.) 18 Nov 2021 14:25:42
"I mean, advancing past the first round of the playoffs likely indicates some sort of success in the playoffs, don't you agree? "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


16.) 18 Nov 2021 21:25:01
"You're trying to say that I take too much stock in projection systems (I don't, they're merely helpful guides) "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


17.) 19 Nov 2021 15:16:08
Could you link me to that subreddit? I'd be curious to see the context you put my comments in and what exactly their responses were. 0% of my evidence in that model was opinionated. Disagreeing with the result (different from my methodology) isn't really an option.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


18.) 22 Nov 2021 14:32:57
Still waiting on that link bub.


19.) 28 Nov 2021 03:03:14
Narrator:

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


 

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chi Sox

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

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


 

 

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

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

Chi Sox

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

LOL -- wrong, wrong, wrong.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

But this is one got me all the lulz:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's success.

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


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

Yes, precisely.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Hilarious, really.


 

 

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

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

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

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

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

Chi Sox

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve said numerous times that teams don’t have the same surplus values for the same players. This is why the surplus value calculators don’t work for that TB/ Cubs trade proposal, statbook. They assume that everyone has the same valuation (notice I’m not saying the same surplus valuation) of every player therefore all one has to do is match up the numbers. I’m not advocating for that in the slightest.

thedudeabides, the Giants tried to patch together another title with a core that they thought could still produce. They hoped Longoria and Cutch would be similar to the kind of players they were in TB and Pittsburgh, but it largely wasn’t the case. Selling tickets is undoubtedly part of team's processes, which leads me to my previous point that actually marginal revenue product (MRP) is a much more encompassing way to calculate surplus value. While a player’s WAR (as the proxy for on-field production) goes a long way in determining their MRP, it shouldn’t be the only thing that goes into surplus value, which I’m assuming is the case for these calculators. Generating ticket revenue, marketing ability, etc. all go into a good surplus value calculation - again, given what a team could pay for on the open market for similar MRP. thedudeabides, I hope this shows you that i’m not advocating for the surplus value calculators, so I really don’t care what the Baseball Trade Value site said or didn’t say. I’ve already been down this road of explanation with statbook. For his sake, I’m not sure if it was retained or not.

3. Statbook, you know that extension offer to Betts is BS and down right embarrassing. They knew he would instantly turn it down. To this point, it appears that the offer was the type of “well, we tried” offer, like what the Nats offered Harper. If he turned down the 10/ $300-350 offer that he deserves playing in a huge market, then it’s a different story, but there has been no indication of that. My point is that Boston needs to put themselves in the position financially to offer Betts the extension that he can’t refuse. At a certain point, there’s a risk aversion factor for Betts that he’ll give into, no matter how much he thinks he wants to test free agency. Even though we can see Betts produce 6-WAR in his sleep, why take the gamble for an extra 5-10% or with the uncertainties that can happen over a full season if this offer is on the table from Boston? People have different preferences, but this seems like a dumb gamble. Also, If the extension is offered and signed before shedding payroll, then it takes away any leverage that Boston would have because others know there’s only so much money that they are willing to flush down the drain in luxury taxes.


19.) 28 Dec 2019 02:48:17
Regarding surplus valuation, this is the point I'm making, and I think a lot of people make. It's just exceedingly lazy. And it's largely a farce.

Obviously, labor economics is a thing. Again, no one here has argued against it. But the fact that almost zero teams value players, contracts, or trades the same shows why it isn't this "gospel truth" or all that robust. It's extremely fluid and entirely subjective.

So arguing "value" is only effective if you know how teams actually value a player. You don't, so I think it's a pretty silly argument to assert that because you think his value is x, then the team must, and thus, the trade is fair. My car example was clearly overthought by you. I was simply saying that I can put whatever value I wish and that's the "value". So if I think Andrew Benintendi is worth Gleyber Torres, but you think he's not, that's fine, but don't get worked up when people don't agree with the value.

Chaim Bloom clearly values the very minimal depth they have. And yes, "Trading a league average hitter from Boston’s lineup is “purging all of their depth"' The Red Sox have no other viable options. Their only other OF option is Marcus Wilson, a recent addition to the 40-man roster. So it's either trade from the putrid farm system they have, or spend more than 5M on a league-average hitter (who probably has a far worse ceiling than Benintendi) . Neither of those are ideal.

And again, the point with Mookie Betts is that he's been pretty set on FA. Multiple comments he has made have referenced his looking forward to FA. He doesn't seem like a guy wanting to limit himself to negotiating with one team. I'd imagine the Red Sox know this as well (as do teams thinking about trading for him) .

Nobody envies Boston's position, obviously. But I simply think that the addition of Benintendi is more of a thought exercise than it is something grounded in reality. It makes literally zero sense to add Benintendi to get rid of Price's contract, regardless of how you feel about him. I still think the Red Sox can get rid of Price if they take on 30-45M of his salary. Or, again, they'll just pay the luxury tax and deal with it in another 12 months. They are not required to just give away players and ruin their ever-shrinking window of contention just to get rid of Price or Eovaldi.

Also, relevant to this conversation: the current Collective Bargaining Agreement ends in 2021. There's a lot of discussion surrounding the luxury tax's addition in the new CBA, so it very well could go away. Could Boston take the gamble that they won't have to worry about it after 2021 and just compete? There seems to be some validity that they would take that chance.


 

 

17 May 2018 23:47:42
With the Machado to Cubs talks being brought up, does Happ, Russell and Montgomery really get it done?

A SS, albeit still young, who has never hit .250, highest wOBA is .316 and has never been at least average in terms of wRC+. Plus a guy in Happ who doesn't really have a position (he can "adequately" play the corners, decent in CF) who is hitting .233 (.396 BABIP) with a 44.2%(!!!) K-Rate. Sure these guys project as much better, but these are the cornerstones in return for your franchise player?

If I'm Baltimore, I'm pushing for Almora Jr. instead of Happ and I want Adbert Alzolay instead of Montgomery. Plus I think the versatility of Montgomery is more valuable to a playoff team like the Cubs.

Chi Sox

1.) 18 May 2018 23:05:52
I can't see the Cubs giving up that much controllable MLB-ready talent for less than a full year of Machado.

I'm definitely not high on Happ or Russell, but the Cubs seem to be. I don't see it.


 

 

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

Chi Sox

1.) 25 Oct 2017 02:43:09
It isn’t me. But I know who they are. I told a friend about our debates and he joined this to troll.

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


2.) 25 Oct 2017 03:09:03
haha u just mad no one agrees with u.


3.) 25 Oct 2017 04:29:36
Hahaha right!


4.) 25 Oct 2017 14:45:51
Well this is interesting. Your just mad because thestatbook obliterated you in the that post. He is usually right about these things. If I hadn't been so busy the last few weeks, I would have agreed with him on this. So let's first talk about the prospects, they are not guaranteed to pan out. I can name a handful of guys who were top prospects and didn't pan out. I find it hilarious you think no team can top any offer the White Sox could make. I agree with thestatebook about the Cubs and Nationals systems. Just because they don't have that many or no top 100 prospects, doesn't mean they can't make a big trade. They have depth that could help them out with that problem. Guess what, after the top 100 prospects that the White Sox have, their depth is lacking. You said they have one of the best systems we have ever seen, clearly a homer. The Yankees still have a better system, because of depth. Your even more delusional for thinking the White Sox could EVER afford Manny Machado. You said the Yankees would never trade Torres, especially with Florial and Adams. Teams say they won't trade prospects all the time, then they trade them. Half of that argument was you being petty, You come off as someone who has to be right all the time.


5.) 25 Oct 2017 14:59:02
BATMAN! Must be a fake account I created too.


6.) 25 Oct 2017 19:37:48
Batman, we have an 82 year old owner worth 1.5 Billion that is going to spend whatever it takes, he's already said that. He has been conservative in the past, but all indications are that it's going to change in 2019. The Bulls aren't going anywhere anytime soon, so he's going to put his money into the Sox in the near future. They aren't going to have a $250 payroll, but they have virtually no money on the books for 2019 and beyond, so I think they'll at least dish out 1 huge contract.

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

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

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


7.) 25 Oct 2017 20:58:25
Spend to do whatever it takes? Since when has he done that? Never, almost everyone they have signed in recent history has been flop. You see Reinsdorf spending $45 million on just one player? I don't, that would be at least half the White Sox payroll for YEARS to come. BTW your owner is a clueless old man. Again with your farm system assertion, after all the top 100 prospects they have, they severely lack depth. That is another factor what makes a farm system great. Carson Fulmer is garbage, Zac Collins didn't hit anything all year, and went down in rankings, not even a top 100 anymore. Adams had 4.45 ERA this past season, his ERA climbs up each level he goes up. Gillaspie hit 223 between the Rays and White Sox Organizations. Sheets is largerly unproven and needs more time before you have a valid argument for him. Do you know why the Astros always have a good farm system, even after trades and promotions? Because they probably have the best in all of baseball, as do the Yankees, Brewers, Braves, and Cubs. You are saying you don't have to be right all the time, but here you are trying to be right.


8.) 25 Oct 2017 21:11:43
But the Giants ownership, led by Charles Johnson (net worth ~4.6B, along with other filthy rich guys, can't afford to have Pence and Stanton on the same team?

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


9.) 26 Oct 2017 10:52:23
Statbook, The giants COULD keep both Stanton and Pence, but all I was saying is that they probably don't want to pay him $18 to sit the bench and pinch hit. They could use that $18 to bolster the bullpen, add a starter, or even add 2 bench guys who may even be better than Pence in that role. They had like a $175 MM payroll to essentially be the worst team in baseball. They aren't exactly thriving. I know they will spend to win, but spending stupid money doesn't sound right.

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

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

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


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


11.) 26 Oct 2017 15:34:00
In fairness to Renteria, it's unfair to cite his firing. That team was putrid, and rebuilding teams often just hire any warm body they can (see: Ron Gardenhire) . Very likely, the White Sox will can Renteria when they actually want to become serious about being a good baseball team.


12.) 26 Oct 2017 18:30:20
First of all, If you don't hear about the Sox system getting raves, what rock are you living under? Literally Baseball America, MLB Pipeline, everyone constantly RAVES over their entire system. They also have a pretty good spread of different positions, although I'd like to see a good LHP in there. They also have a #4 pick next June. If you don't believe that they have the best system in the league, you are an absolute fool. Let's make that clear.

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

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

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

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

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


13.) 26 Oct 2017 19:03:31
White Sox Team ERA: under Cooper
2017: 4.78
2016: 4.10
2015: 3.98
2014: 4.29
2013: 3.98
2012: 4.02
2011: 4.10
2010: 4.09
2009: 4.14
2008: 4.06-the last year they made the playoffs
2007: 4.77
2006: 4.61
2005: 3.61- won the world series
2004: 4.91
2003: 4.17
2002: 4.53- Cooper's first season as pitching coach.
Explain to me again how a team that regular finishes with 4-5 runs given up a game in a season has not changed pitching coaches.
I will give you some slack for mentioning Sale and Qunintana, both are good pitchers. Same with Kahnle. John Danks career with the White Sox 79-104, ERA 4.38. 3 totals season with a winning record in 10 seasons. Bobby Jenks fell apart and hasn't pitched since 2011. He can't fix James Shields, couldn't fix Clippard in the short time he was there. Gavin Floyd in 7 seasons with them 63-65, 4.22 ERA. I am not disagreeing with you on them having a good system, they do, the best, i don't think so. It was baron before those trades, and after all they acquired it still isn't that plentiful. I could be wrong, but you need to stop acting like that everyone will pan out.


14.) 26 Oct 2017 19:51:19
Pitching staffs are 3rd in overall WAR with Cooper as the pitching coach, so he's actually been pretty good.

But, when you dig into the numbers:

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

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

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

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


15.) 26 Oct 2017 21:10:25
And that is the real point i've been trying to make. The WAR for the pitching isn't that bad, but he's only been able to hone in on a few pitchers. Pelfrey, Holland, Edwin Jackson, James Shields, Matt Latos, Samardizja, and Liriano are all examples of guys who signed or were traded there and did not rebound there career their. Liriano was able to rebound in Pittsburgh were pitchers actually rebound their careers.


16.) 26 Oct 2017 23:59:24
Yeah, the whole "rebound their career" statement was silly.

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

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


17.) 27 Oct 2017 00:45:40
Ray Searage is another one of the best in the league.


18.) 27 Oct 2017 07:00:39
For those ERAs, he wasn't always given the best guys to work with. Now, I'm not saying that every team has been a success or even every player he's worked with. 2015 being a good example of failure. In 2017, yeah the ERA was 4.78, but look at our rotation for most of the season. Mike Pelfrey made 21 STARTS! You had guys like guys like Chris Volstad and David Holmberg starting games. The Chris Becks and Dylan Coveys of the world in the bullpen. For the most part, the front office was trying to lose games.

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

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

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

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


19.) 27 Oct 2017 07:59:20
We could give you answers, but unless the answer is “the White Sox”, you won’t even accept it.

So why waste our time?


20.) 27 Oct 2017 16:07:03
If you can give me answers with solid evidence, I'll gladly accept it. The key part is having good evidence or justification for dissenting opinions.


21.) 27 Oct 2017 17:20:15
Ok here you are trying to justify why they had a bad ERA this past season. You are saying because of the pitchers they were given they did horrible, ok isn't that also the fault of the pitching coach too? by your logic he should have been able to fix Pelfrey to be the pitcher he was early on with them Mets or at least a fraction of it. Danks may have had injury problems, but he could have rebounded. And you have contradicted yourself when you said he couldn't rebound and regain his fastball. Cooper could/ should have been able to help him. Floyd you said was a top prospect in the Phillies system. This true, but this also proves my point about not all prospects panning out. Cooper has had some success with pitchers, but those are few and far between. They are outnumbered by alot. For Shields I could think that his Rays pitching Coach, Jim Hickey could fix him, Ray Searage, Juan Nieves, if Dave Duncan was still coaching he could probably do so.


22.) 27 Oct 2017 18:34:51
Statbook, so with Kahnle, Floyd, Danks, Matt Albers, Junior Guerra, Jesse Crain, Quintana, Miguel Gonzalez, Phil Humber, Matt Thornton, Edwin Jackson, J. J. Putz, Greg Infante, Dustin Hermanson, Cliff Polite, Damaso Marte, etc., none of those guys rebounded their careers with Cooper? Call my takes "bad", but you're just flat out wrong here. I've never seen more irony than with you saying I'M the king of bad takes! hahaha

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


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

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

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

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


23.) 27 Oct 2017 19:45:14
-Phil Humber had a 5.34 ERA with Chicago.
-Albers had a 6.41 ERA in his second year (where a career "rebound" would be more obvious. ) That was good for a -2.0 WAR. He was a serviceable reliever until he went to Chicago.
-Junior Guerra pitched four innings for the White Sox, FOUR. His "rebound" was with Milwaukee, and even that didn't last.
-J. J. Putz had a 3.07 career ERA before his season in Chicago, and posted only a slightly better one there.
-John Danks got progressively worse every year at Chicago.
-Edwin Jackson was a year removed for a 4-Win season when he went to Chicago and it took him two seasons there to match his one from Detroit.

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

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

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

Absolutely hilarious.


24.) 27 Oct 2017 20:13:30
Also, that whole thing of Derek Holland turning down more money to work with Cooper, how'd that work out for him?

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

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

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

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

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


25.) 27 Oct 2017 20:39:50
Cliff Politte, another "rebounded" player was let go mid-season in 2006 and pitched a total of 17 IP in the minors before giving up baseball.

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

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

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


26.) 28 Oct 2017 03:05:07
This started from the claim from Batman that Don Cooper was a terrible pitching coach. Do you think he's awful and he should definatly be fired? If not, you should remember who you are disagreeing with. Until you guys can show me a pitching coach that has a better reputation for getting good innings out of guys after they struggled, I will stand by my notion that Don Cooper is one of the best in the league. Those WAR and IP stats posted earlier don't lie either. You say he had just a few good pitchers that carried him, but when you develop really good pitchers, yes they will pitcher a lot and attribute to wins, obviously.

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

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

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

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

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

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


27.) 28 Oct 2017 04:36:10
The only good thing Humber did in a White Sox uniform was pitch a no hitter, that's it. Polite, who i had never heard of, had one good season with the White Sox out of three. Miguel Gonzalez was much better when he was in Baltimroe, so he shouldn't even be on your list as someone who rebounded. I suppose you want to name Scott Downs as well huh, oh wait he doesn't fit your examples because he absolutely sucked with the White Sox. Of course the pitching coach isn't in charge of forming the team. He is in charge of the pitching staff. They are responsible for making sure the pitchers are ready and find any troubles they maybe having. Isn't this something you tried telling me earlier. That is what makes a pitching coach good. Dave Eiland got fired from the Yankees because he couldn't fix one guy: AJ Burnett.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


29.) 28 Oct 2017 05:26:39
Biggest point is this:

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

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

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

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


30.) 28 Oct 2017 07:37:05
How do you give evidence on an opinion? If it’s opinion, it’s subjective and immeasurable.

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

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

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


31.) 28 Oct 2017 07:38:30
Another gem you threw in there:

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


32.) 28 Oct 2017 16:21:04
^^^Don't know why that posted again.


33.) 28 Oct 2017 20:42:57
"But others did, in fact, benefit greatly from Don Cooper. It'd be silly to say he's a terrible pitching coach. He's very good, and his tenure with the same team is evidence. "

Thank You. This is the point I was making.

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

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

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

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


34.) 28 Oct 2017 23:27:12
It's not hard to create a standard for a rebounded career: were they good for a reasonable time after their "rebound season? " Rebound season meaning the time they were really, really good after years of being mediocre or bad.

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

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


35.) 29 Oct 2017 02:59:06
I would say in general if a guy goes from being really bad to even just serviceable, that's a rebounded career. But that's just me. Every case is different too and context matters.


36.) 01 Nov 2017 15:30:53
"if a guy goes from being really bad to even just serviceable, that's a rebounded career. "

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

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

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

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

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


37.) 02 Nov 2017 22:45:26
"You don't get to redefine terms "

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

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

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


38.) 03 Nov 2017 13:13:24
Haha, I used to think your being obtuse was an act. Now I realize, you really are this obtuse.

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

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

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

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

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


39.) 03 Nov 2017 22:33:48
1. Here you are, subjectively trying to define a topic that we've agreed is subjective. Unbelievable.

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

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

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

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


40.) 05 Nov 2017 13:41:16
I'm going to skip to #4, since the others are mindless arguments I'm done with.

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

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

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

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

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

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


41.) 05 Nov 2017 16:37:00
To set the record straight, I know just as much about advanced metrics as you. It's not rocket science. Like 10% of it is knowing what the stat is/ what it measures and the other 90% is knowing how to use it and in what scenarios it supports a claim. I just don't need to throw out new measures that I hope no one else knows about so my points can't be challenged. What's been unfortunate for you in this process is that I know about advanced metrics as well.

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

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

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


42.) 06 Nov 2017 08:00:02
Please, don't flatter yourself. You're way too obtuse to be a professor in anything other than how to BS people and pat your own back.

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

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

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

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

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

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


43.) 06 Nov 2017 23:30:14
Triggered.


44.) 18 Nov 2017 13:02:50
WOW, I step away from this site for like 4 months and miss an actual white-sox conversation!

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

But some thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

 

 

Chi Sox's rumour replies

 

Click To View This Thread

02 Dec 2021 20:25:13
Nothing like a good ole' Natedog analogy to really drive home a bad take.

It is absolutely astonishing how you are saying that Kimbrel has only been good over a four month stretch and therefore is horrible but wholeheartedly believe that Darin Ruff is better than Jose Abreu. You will really believe anything as long as it benefits your argument and makes the Chicago White Sox look bad.

Kimbrel had a very good 2021 season.

Chi Sox

 

 

Click To View This Thread

02 Dec 2021 15:34:14
"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. "

Lol, going from "absolutely not"

"But yeah, maybe there's a GM out there dumber than Rick Hahn right now who'll give up something"

to "well maybe"!

Also, let me know when we're going to stop grading relievers with ERA over 25 inning samples. Knebel, who has thrown 39 innings over the last 3 seasons, just got $10 million. But Kimbrel's lack of recent consistent track record kills his trade value? GTFOH. Kimbrel is a better pitcher and was never playing 2022 for much cheaper than $15 million.

Second base is not a glaring need for Philly, it's short. They have three guys that can play second for most of 2022.

"I will continue to hammer the point that Craig Kimbrel was completely and utterly terrible for the White Sox and that his value is essentially zero. "

His 26.5 K-BB% with the White Sox was in the 92nd percentile of pitchers who threw a minimum of 10 innings during the second half of 2021. Please though, tell me more about the reliability of ERA, especially over tiny samples.

Chi Sox

 

 

Click To View This Thread

02 Dec 2021 15:00:09
Could have saved two pretty good prospects! Good thing Milwaukee's farm system is already elite.

Chi Sox

 

 

Click To View This Thread

02 Dec 2021 03:27:21
Did he actually reference Kimbrel or are you talking about him saying they're "not necessarily looking for a closer at this point"?

I think the Phillies have a really solid team - one that could easily win a division in 2022 if they make a few improvements. They need a shortstop badly and their pen is quite obviously a glaring hole. They also lost Neris who'd pretty damn good in his own right. While I like Knebel as a reliever, I'd be very unhappy as a Phillie fan walking into next season with him as my closer.

Adding Kimbrel (even if it was for Segura) and let's say, Story, Rosario and a CF via trade makes them a lot more interesting.

"So what you're saying is that I'm 1/ 1, while you're batting about as well as Cesar Hernandez's White Sox stint? "

No, you missed on Gausman, Bundy, Verlander, and Neris too. They could still get Suzuki I guess, but I really think he'll be a Mariner. The Yarbrough trade is also theoretically still in play.

Chi Sox

 

 

Click To View This Thread

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

Chi Sox

 

 

 

Chi Sox's talk replies