MLB Trade Rumors Member Posts

 

Chi Sox's Profile

Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded

No Profile Picture uploaded


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 banter posts

 

To Chi Sox's last 5 rumour replies

 

To Chi Sox's last 5 banter replies

 

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

 

13 Mar 2022 14:05:13
Proposal for the rest offseason for the White Sox:

Sox/A's

White Sox Get:
LHP Sean Manaea

A's Get:
1B Gavin Sheets
RHP Andrew Dalquist

Sox/Rays

White Sox Get:
OF Kevin Kiermaier

Rays Get:
RHP Craig Kimbrel

- Sign Ryan Tepera 2 years/$17 million
- Sign Stephen Vogt 1 year/$1.5 million

Lineup:

SS Anderson R
3B Moncada S
RF Robert R
1B Abreu R
C Grandal S
LF Jimenez R
DH Vaughn R
CF Kiermaier L
2B Harrison R

Rotation:
1. Giolito R
2. Lynn R
3. Cease R
4. Manaea L
5. Keuchel L

Bullpen:
Hendriks R
Bummer L
Graveman R
Tepera R
Kelly R
Crochet L
Kopech R
Lopez R

Approx. payroll = $212 Million

Chi Sox

1.) 14 Mar 2022 14:54:32
The reason for the Rays looking to trade Kevin Kiermaier is to save money.

Trading him for Craig Kimbrel costs them more money.

Kimbrel- owed 16M in 2022
Kiermaier- owed 12M in 2022 with a 2.5M buyout in 2023.

The Rays would be taking on $4M more in '22, which seems to go against their goal here.


2.) 14 Mar 2022 16:23:01
Is it really though? They could do that in the process, but Kiermaier represents a redundancy on their roster. Brett Phillips is a Kiermaier-lite still on a pre-arb deal. Reallocating the money that isn't disappearing for either team could make sense.

I'm sure the Sox could throw in the $1.5 million to make the money even too if need be.

That said, I can still see why Tampa doesn't do this due to their ability to turn recently DFA'd bums into playoff bullpen pieces.


3.) 14 Mar 2022 18:23:28
The Rays are most likely wanting to get out from that money, not just reinvest it into an overpriced, overrated relief pitcher.

The Rays don't exactly *need* Craig Kimbrel, so taking on more or equal money for him wouldn't even make sense.

(Also, your regular reminder that Craig Kimbrel is simply not a good pitcher anymore. )


 

 

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.) 16 Dec 2021 13:50:08
Darin Ruf wasn't just good for a "4-month period" (with that 4-month period being sandwiched in between really, really, really bad performance) . He was really bad for several years, went to Korea, figured out his swing, came back to the states and has been really good.

My point has never been that Darin Ruf has had a better career. I know you take any slight at a White Sox player very personally, but a little bit of reality is needed for you.

My argument was that IN THE YEAR TWENTY-TWENTY ONE A. D., Darin Ruf had an objectively better season. For one season. Not for his entire career. Not even for multiple seasons. For one season.

Feel free to disagree with that point. But your scarecrow argument to suggest I'm saying Darin Ruf is better, period, is hilarious.

But it's what we've come to expect from you.

You literally cannot handle that someone has, accurately, pointed out that Craig Kimbrel is hot garbage, and that Rick Hahn stupidly a) traded really good and, now, very necessary talent for Kimbrel and then b) picked up an option that is likely 2-4x what he'd make on the open market on a 1-year-deal.

That was a beyond stupid move from Hahn, regardless of what you think about Kimbrel's talent and future outlook. He's not worth 16M, and even you agree, as evidenced by the many trades you've tried to toss him into.

If he was truly an elite pitcher, you'd have no issue, whatsoever, with him getting 16M, or at the very least, you'd shoot for a little bit higher tier 2B in a trade.


19.) 16 Dec 2021 13:51:08
Correction: Craig Kimbrel had a very good 2021 season with the Chicago Cubs.

That was it. He went bankrupt in the second half.

While we're at it, can I interest you in buying stock in WeWork? They were really good for a season!


20.) 20 Dec 2021 14:19:16
We'll kick it over to DavidStearnsGM for comment: David?


 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

06 Apr 2022 21:52:00
2022 Predictions:

AL East

1. Toronto (93-64)
2. Tampa Bay (92-70)
3. New York (89-73)
4. Boston (85-77)
5. Baltimore (55-107)

AL Central

1. Chicago (95-67)
2. Minnesota (81-81)
3. Cleveland (78-82)
4. Kansas City (77-83)
5. Detroit (74-86)

AL West

1. Houston (94-68)
2. Seattle (84-78)
3. Los Angeles (82-80)
4. Texas (74-86)
5. Oakland (60-102)

NL East

1. Atlanta (100-62)
2. Philadelphia (95-67)
3. New York (87-75)
4. Miami (80-82)
5. Washington (63-99)

NL Central

1. Milwaukee (97-65)
2. St. Louis (86-76)
3. Cincinnati (75-87)
4. Chicago (73-89)
5. Pittsburgh (57-105)

NL West

1. Los Angeles (104-52)
2. San Diego (85-77)
3. San Francisco (84-78)
4. Colorado (74-86)
5. Arizona (57-105)

Wild Card

Red Sox (6) < Blue Jays (3) (2-0)
Yankees (5) > Rays (4) (2-1)
Cardinals (6) < Brewers (3) (2-0)
Mets (5) < Phillies (4) (2-1)

Divisional

Yankees (5) < White Sox (1) (4-2)
Blue Jays (3) > Astros (2) (4-2)
Phillies (4) < Dodgers (1) (4-1)
Brewers (3) < Braves (2) (4-3)

Championship

Blue Jays (3) < White Sox (1) (4-3)
Braves (2) < Dodgers (1) (4-3)

World Series

White Sox (1) < Dodgers (1) (4-1)

AL MVP: Shohei Ohtani
NL MVP: Trea Turner

AL CY Young: Shane McClannahan
NL CY Young: Corbin Burnes

AL ROY: Bobby Witt Jr.
NL ROY: Seiya Suzuki

Chi Sox

1.) 07 Apr 2022 13:05:30
White Sox in 4 is LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.


2.) 07 Apr 2022 15:19:52
Where do I pick the White Sox in 4?


3.) 07 Apr 2022 17:18:45
Sorry, in 5. Against the Dodgers? Man, it's nice that you're excited for Opening Day, but yikes.


4.) 07 Apr 2022 19:40:25
Let's really work hard here, Nate. I clearly show the Sox losing in 5 to the Dodgers. I don't show them winning any series in 5 games.


5.) 07 Apr 2022 22:12:01
You could serve to use better means than.


6.) 07 Apr 2022 22:55:26
Or, and this may be a stretch, you could learn to read? Talk about yikes. LOL.


7.) 07 Apr 2022 23:05:24
"Talk about yikes"

Wait, when did we start talking about your prognosis of the Giants' future?

Yikes.


8.) 07 Apr 2022 23:06:17
Also, the dude who legitimately has the Blue Jays playing only 157 games shouldn't criticize someone else for their oversight.

Just throwing that one out there.


9.) 07 Apr 2022 23:41:35
Nice catch. 93-69*.


10.) 08 Apr 2022 04:18:22
Detroit, Cleveland, Texas, and Colorado are all playing 160.

And how unfair is it that the Dodgers only have to play 156 games?

This thing is loaded with more errors than Fernando Tatis' Fangraphs page, so maybe dial back the condescension for someone mistaking the symbols you used.


 

 

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.


 

 

 

Chi Sox's rumour replies

 

Click To View This Thread

06 Apr 2022 16:55:51
The National League is terrified of the Giants infield of Flores, Crawford, Estrada and Belt.

Chi Sox

 

 

Click To View This Thread

05 Apr 2022 18:15:40
Kind of ironic you bringing up White Sox injuries when your 1, 4, and 6 hitters here are on the shelf, Nathan.

Chi Sox

 

 

Click To View This Thread

14 Mar 2022 16:23:01
Is it really though? They could do that in the process, but Kiermaier represents a redundancy on their roster. Brett Phillips is a Kiermaier-lite still on a pre-arb deal. Reallocating the money that isn't disappearing for either team could make sense.

I'm sure the Sox could throw in the $1.5 million to make the money even too if need be.

That said, I can still see why Tampa doesn't do this due to their ability to turn recently DFA'd bums into playoff bullpen pieces.

Chi Sox

 

 

Click To View This Thread

20 Dec 2021 23:01:35
Very true, I forgot to factor in the Farhan Zaidi fairy dust effect.

"I'll agree that there's a chance that Kimbrel could do it again. "

Don't try and walk back your "Mark my words: Craig Kimbrel will an ERA above 5.00, and a negative WAR in 2022" claim now, Nate. Very sly of you to cover all of your bases tho. That Steamer projection making you a little nervous?

So, if I understand correctly, Kimbrel could bounce back to be a productive reliever (maybe even a high end one like Steamer projects), but only he happens to get traded to SF, which you are now realizing may not be such a crazy idea after all.

As a side note, we also know that MLB not only banned sticky stuff mid-season, but they also literally changed the baseballs. It's not *the* reason for Kimbrel's drop off, but it could have certainly played a role.

Chi Sox

 

 

Click To View This Thread

20 Dec 2021 14:19:16
We'll kick it over to DavidStearnsGM for comment: David?

Chi Sox

 

 

 

Chi Sox's banter replies

 

Click To View This Thread

21 Apr 2022 06:15:43
Could you show me where I said I was referencing ZiPS?

Chi Sox

 

 

Click To View This Thread

08 Apr 2022 00:10:31
I said: "I already conceded that I underestimated how quickly they could turn around their team. "

Then you said "Just acknowledge how hilariously bad your take on the Giants was. "

Make it make sense

Zaidi still hasn't built a sustainable roster in SF yet however. He has to prove that last year wasn't a flash in the pan. They replaced Posey with Bart and Bryant with Pederson. Not great for the lineup.

Belt, Crawford and Longoria may not have career years again. It's actually extremely likely that they don't. They really don't have a single game changing hitter in their lineup (No, Darin Ruf doesn't count) . They have ONE hitter projected to have a wRC+ over 110 (Belt) . This is tied with the Dbacks, Orioles, Pirates, Cubs, A's (LOL, great company) for the 2nd worst in baseball (only the Tigers have zero) . For reference, the White Sox and Blue Jays have 6 and the Dodgers have 7. No one else is higher than 5. We're talking about two massively different tiers here based on the best projections available. The Giants could legitimately have one hitter slug over .450.

And before you ho-hum projections in general, it's literally math my man. No need to get upset.

Their biggest FA signing has only pitched 173 innings over the last THREE seasons with a history of recurring shoulder and elbow issues. Acting like Zaidi has the same kind of roster as Hahn in Chicago is laughable. Zaidi deserves credit for piecing together last year's masterpiece, but acting like they are going to stroll to 90 wins again isn't wise IMO, but we're allowed to give him the benefit of the doubt after last year.

Chi Sox

 

 

Click To View This Thread

07 Apr 2022 23:41:35
Nice catch. 93-69*.

Chi Sox

 

 

Click To View This Thread

07 Apr 2022 22:55:26
Or, and this may be a stretch, you could learn to read? Talk about yikes. LOL.

Chi Sox

 

 

Click To View This Thread

07 Apr 2022 19:40:25
Let's really work hard here, Nate. I clearly show the Sox losing in 5 to the Dodgers. I don't show them winning any series in 5 games.

Chi Sox