MLB talk 3

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+.

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.

06 Jul 2021 15:10:25
Man, this site got quiet. Especially Chi Sox. Has anyone checked in on him lately? Is he coping with the fact that the Giants, who according to him were 5-6 years away from contending, have the league's best record?

Or that Darin Ruf is hitting better than literally every guy on the White Sox right now?

Now that I look at it, their best hitter right now would barely be ahead of LaMonte Wade, Jr. (who the Giants got for the recently DFA'd Shaun Anderson) .

Wade, mind you, is ranked 7th on the Giants hitting.

It's remarkable that Zaidi is outperforming the #2 GM of the Year (2020 Edition) with his rebuilding club. Rick Hahn should take some lessons.

12 Jun 2021 23:39:08
{Ed's Note - Ed001 has posted a new article entitled, Shocks Part 1 - Mike Tyson v Buster Douglas

10 Mar 2021 15:18:45
{Ed's Note - Ed001 has posted a new article entitled, Sporting Villains Torture And Concrete Footballs, How Not To Motivate The Iraq Team By Uday Hussein

18 Feb 2021 15:29:20
As Spring Training begins, here are my projected standings for the 2021 season:

AL East
NY Yankees- 96-66
Toronto- 93-69
Tampa Bay- 88-74
Boston- 76-86
Baltimore- 60-102

AL Central
Chicago- 93-69
Minnesota- 92-70
Cleveland- 85-77
Kansas City- 71-91
Detroit- 63-99

AL West
Oakland- 91-71
LA Angels- 88-74
Houston- 87-75
Seattle- 74-88
Texas- 64-98

NL East
Atlanta- 92-70
NY Mets- 90-72
Philadelphia- 81-81
Miami- 75-87
Washington- 75-87

NL Central
St. Louis- 91-71
Chicago- 84-78
Milwaukee- 82-80
Cincinnati- 78-84
Pittsburgh- 58-104

NL West
LA Dodgers- 102-60
San Diego- 90-72
San Francisco- 79-83
Arizona- 76-86
Colorado- 56-106

Playoffs:
AL WC- Toronto over Minnesota
NL WC- San Diego over NY Mets

ALDS
NY Yankees over Toronto, 3-1
Oakland over Chicago, 3-0

NLDS
LA Dodgers over San Diego, 3-2
Atlanta over St. Louis, 3-0

ALCS
NY Yankees over Oakland, 4-2
Atlanta over LA Dodgers, 4-3

World Series
Atlanta over NY Yankees 4-3

18 Feb 2021 16:20:11
And no, Chi Sox, I'm not trolling when I suggest the Athletics sweep the White Sox in the first round of the playoffs.

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.

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.

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!?!?!?!?!?!

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?

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.

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) .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

22 Oct 2020 22:41:13
Free Agent Predictions

-J. T. Realmuto- Mets. 5/ 85M.
-Trevor Bauer- Angels, 1/ 23M.
-Marcell Ozuna- Braves, 6/ 144M
-George Springer- Astros, 7/ 165M
-Nick Castellanos (Opts Out) - Phillies, 5/ 100M
-Marcus Semien-Athletics, 3/ 36M
-DJ LeMahieu- Yankees, 3/ 45M
-Marcus Stroman- Yankees, 2/ 34M
-Didi Gregorius- Angels, 3/ 42M
-Masahiro Tanaka- Twins, 4/ 54M
-Liam Hendriks- Giants, 3/ 21M
-Jake Odorizzi- Cardials, 4/ 60M
-Shane Greene- Blue Jays, 2/ 16M
-Alex Colome- White Sox, 1/ 8M
-Blake Treinen- Astros, 2/ 15M
-Taijuan Walker- Phillies, 4/ 48M
-Jose Quintana- Marlins, 3/ 39M
-Nelson Cruz- Twins, 1/ 12.5M
-James Paxton- Blue Jays, 2/ 28M
-Michael Brantley- Indians, 3/ 39M.

25 Oct 2020 03:47:16
So you think there won't be much financial effect on this years FA market? I sure hope so. My thoughts:

1. Someone will give Colome 2 years

2. I think 3 years to Brantley is a bad idea for who ever would do it

3. Tanaka ain't leaving NY imo

4. Bauer gets a lot more on a 1-year deal

5. Castellanos, who just put up a league average offensive 60 games, is definitely not opting out, and if he did, he's not getting close to 9 figures.

6. Ozuna is not getting a 24 million AAV over 6 years. He's largely a DH.

25 Oct 2020 12:11:43
The Bauer deal is a tough one to pin down. If he’s truly unwilling to consider multi-year deals, he gives up a ton of leverage in negotiations.

Not to mention, his personality isn’t going to fly with a lot of managers, so he may be limited.

I personally think he’s not wise taking one year deals, but that’s the route he is choosing. I’m not convinced it’ll work out for him.

25 Oct 2020 12:12:58
The point about the financial market is definitely a fair one. And one to be considered. How much affect? We won’t know, so I went with what I thought they’d get in normal years.

A few other thoughts:

I agree that 3 years for Brantley is bad. But someone will probably do it.

Tanaka will follow the money, which I don’t think will come from NY. They have a lot of money on the books and more owed soon. Locking down a 32-year-old pitcher for 4 seasons is unwise.

The other points are fair too. I disagree with some, but it’s whatevs.

31 Aug 2020 15:30:12
{Ed's Note - Ed001 has posted a new article entitled, Sporting Fairytales Part 2: National Champions

11 Jul 2020 18:47:15
My All-MLB Team

Lineup

LF Acuña Jr.
CF Trout
RF Yelich
3B Arenado
1B Bellinger
DH Cruz
C Sanchez
SS Lindor
2B Altuve

Bench

C Realmuto
1B Freeman
3B/SS Bregman
IF/OF Báez
OF Betts

Rotation

deGrom
Cole
Scherzer
Verlander
Kershaw

Bullpen

Hader
Chapman
Jansen
Osuna
Betances
Hand
Britton

19 Nov 2020 14:49:05
Sanchez over Realmuto? Never
Verlander? He didn't even play
How about Bauer?

06 Feb 2020 21:13:09
... deleted

20 Jan 2020 14:29:45
Yankees Extension Candidates

The Yankees have a lot of players that could be extension candidates before Spring Training rolls around. Not saying all or any of these happen but here is what I think some extensions might look like if they were to happen.

James Paxton- 4 years $80 million

Masahiro Tanaka- 3 years $45 million

D.J. LeMahieu- 3 years $60 million

Aaron Judge- 8 years $240 million

Gary Sanchez- 5 years $100 million

Gleyber Torres- 10 years $250 million

05 Feb 2020 23:17:33
I can see the possibilities of these extensions but I think they will be more inclined to extend Judge, Torres, and Sanchez over Tanaka (injury prone) Paxton (injury prone) and LaMahieu (possible decline)

09 Jan 2020 03:56:51
The Royals have stated they will only trade Merrifield if they receive some MLB ready players, and some top minor leaguers. I propose the Cubs trade Happ, Bote, and either Ethan Hearn or Ronnier Quentiro (any cathers not named Conteras, Caratini or Amaya) and either a pitcher like Oscar De La Cruz or James Norwood. The Royals get 2 MLB players, a excellent minor league catcher which they need, and a potential relief pitcher.

The other trade I suggest is the Cubs trade Chatwood and attach Decalso to him for a mid-level minor league player. The purpose of this trade is to dump salary. A team like Minnesota, or the Angels might be interested. There is no point for the Cubs to hang onto Chatwood this year, if he is bad they are done with him, if he is good they cannot afford to resign him. Better to give one of the you ng pitchers whether Azolay, Mills, Rea or whoever experience since they will be around long term. Decalso is just a waste of a roster spot and the Cubs should have never signed him, he never could hit. By not asking for a big return one of the teams that needs a starter may take Chatwood since is 13 mil salary is not that high. Granted Decalso is a waste, but they are not surrendering any decent prospects.

09 Jan 2020 17:57:06
The Royals likely want guys who aren't a year away from arbitration, especially for their #1 trade piece.

Frankly, I think the Cubs would have to begin a package with Amaya, Hoerner, or Ademan to get Merrifield, and it might have be a combo of two of them. And even then, I think several teams would outbid Chicago for him.

07 Jan 2020 16:18:35
I thought I'd look at 2019 overperformers, based on BABIP vs. xBABIP differences.

Now, a couple notes:

1) I used a calculation developed by Alex Chamberlain at Fangraphs. This calculator accounts for things like Line Drive %, IFFB, Hard Hit, Speed, Opposite-field hits. Ultimately, the kind of factors that often factor into likeliness for a hit.

2) Some players have unnaturally big xBABIP and BABIP splits. However, just because this is true doesn't mean that a player won't regress. If you disagree, and want to use this defense, you need to give me THREE years worth of data, at a minimum.

3) xBABIP, by nature, gives credit to players who changed their swing, approach, skills or physique. Those changes are already considered, and will manifest themselves in the stats.

4) Regression doesn't guarantee that a player will get worse. Certain changes in stats can change one's BABIP. But statistical trends DO suggest that negative regression is the norm for players who far exceed their xBABIP.

So here are the top 10 BABIP hitters from 2019 (minimum 300 PAs) and their xBABIP.

1. Fernando Tatis: 410 BABIP/.357 xBABIP. Difference: .053

2. Yoan Moncada: .406/.349 Diff: .057

3. Keston Hiura: .402/.357 Diff: .045

4. Tim Anderson: .399/.347 Diff: .052

5. Bryan Reynolds: .387/.357 Diff: .030

6. David Dahl: .386/.358 Diff: .028

7. Brandon Lowe: .377/.348 Diff: .029

8. Harold Castro: .367/.367 Diff: .000

9. Yordan Alvarez: .366/.354 Diff: .012

10. Jorge Alfaro: .364/.359 Diff: .005

A few observations:

1) As usual, the guys at the very top see pretty massive differences. Moncada, Tatis, and Anderson are all over 50 points higher, which is the first time in 5 seasons we've had three that exceed it that highly.

2) Jorge Alfaro's BABIP actually came down from 2018 (.406 BABIP). Since batted ball data was collected (2002), we still have not seen a player manufacture two consecutive .400 BABIP seasons (with 300 PAs). Alfaro had two in a row (.420 in 2017), but he only had 118 PAs, which is not substantive to give data.

3) Castro, Alvarez, and Alfaro were the only ones remotely close to their xBABIP (Castro was dead-on). The thing in common: True IFFB % (FB x IFFB). Castro had a 3.3% IFFB, but that's compared to just a 22.5% fly ball rate. Turns out that not hitting IFFB helps.

4) Moncada, Tatis, and Anderson's thing in common: speed. If there's a skill that will likely result in wider xBABIP vs. BABIP differences, speed is the more likely factor. Although, this isn't a guarantee. Adalberto Mondesi was 15th in BABIP and his xBABIP was only .014 off. Trevor Story's (ranked 11th) speed factor was higher than Anderson & Moncada, and only .004 off.

In other words, speed helps offset it, but there's still underlying factors, and none which are consistent.

Based on that inconsistency, the top three most likely to regress in 2020: Fernando Tatis, Yoan Moncada, Tim Anderson.

This doesn't mean they will be bad players. But if you're expecting them to take steps forward in 2020, you're betting against nearly 2 decades worth of data.

The most unlikely to regress: While the easy choice would be Harold Castro, I'm going to pick Yordan Alvarez. His 51% hard hit rate, and his moderate 37% fly ball rate has the makings of being highly sustainable.

07 Jan 2020 16:58:37
I did the same with every team.

Top underperforming team via xBABIP: three way tie for the Angels, Dodgers, and Athletics at .047. Cardinals and Giants were one point below (.046).

Top OVERperforming team: White Sox. 2019 BABIP: .329. xBABIP: .329. Chicago's .329 BABIP put them #1 in baseball. The Rockies had .321 (thanks to a comical .348 home BABIP vs. 292 road) .

If you neutralize it based on xBABIP, the White Sox were 17th. So what happened? There are several factors, but the White Sox were the third worst team, per Fangraphs, in hard hit percentage (32.8%) . They were just barely above the Mariners (32.5) and Orioles (32.4). And a full percent behind the Padres (33.9).

The other element at play: they were #1 in opposite field hits (28.7%) . And the next highest team, Miami, wasn't all that close (26.9%) . xBABIP considers opposite field hits, but it weighs them less than any other factor. This is likely because hitting it opposite field is only controllable in a very minimal way. In other words, opposite field hits are likely the result of greater luck and not so much a sustainable factor.

The White Sox also had 2 of the top 10 BABIP guys, and 4 of the top 25 (McCanna and Leury Garcia) . That will obviously prop up their BABIP.

It'll be interesting to see how the White Sox do with the levels of xBABIP regression they face all around them.

08 Jan 2020 22:04:00
Statbook, are you just trying to stir the pot with one individual?

09 Jan 2020 00:53:32
If anyone gets triggered because of stats, that's their problem.

12 Jan 2020 06:06:59
Moncada and Anderson definitely aren't going to hit .315 and .335 again, respectively. I think Moncada will benefit with continued plate discipline improvements and I'd bet Anderson to sit .285 - .300 for the next couple of seasons.

One point I will disagree with you on is opposite field hits. I think with expected stats in general, the guys who always underperform are the guys that are easily shifted against. If your offensive approach is one that allows you to hit balls all over the diamond, you're obviously going to be harder to defend against. These will be the guys who generally overperform their expected stats.

Barring injury, McCann and Garcia won't see regular ABs in 2020. Only Moncada, Anderson, Abreu, and Jimenez will be the returning regulars in the lineup, so there isn't really regression "all around them". The Jon Jays of the world are not back. Of those 4, their batted ball profiles, in terms of direction, show nothing to warrant extreme shifts. Only left handed Moncada sees a decent share.

The 2020 White Sox offense has the opportunity to be particularly potent after a really good offseason.

12 Jan 2020 21:53:41
Regarding opposite field hits, there's a reason the formula considers them, and for the very reason you stated. But there's also good reason why it is given the lowest weight (for the reason I stated) : players can only control where the ball is hit to a very minimal degree. If players can control where the ball is hit, you would never see players get shifted against. So your retorts are already considered in the formula.

The White Sox have to be given credit for being active this winter. And there's probably as many bounce-back candidates as there are regression candidates next year.

The point of the exercise wasn't to throw shade at the White Sox, but it just turned out that the White Sox had a lot of guys (and their best offensive performers last year) who significantly over-performed and should see a massive decline in 2020.

The bigger point was actually to look at Tatis and throw some caution regarding people's expectations there. Padres fans seem to think the guy will hit 150 wRC+ next year, or higher. I didn't even realize that Moncada's BABIP was that comically high.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. "

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.

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.

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.

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.

05 Dec 2019 19:49:12
Curious what folks think about Chris Archer's value. I'm a Phillies fan and think rounding out he rotation with him as the #4 and being able to shift Arietta to #5 could have some benefits. I would love the Phils to be able to craft some kind of deal where they could hook Archer as a reclamation project for Bryan Price and possibly fetch Taillon also. Knowing he's out for 2020, he could be a good gamble if he can bounce back. Might be unlikely being this is his second TJ surgery, but I'd like to see Klentak get creative here. Thoughts?

06 Dec 2019 19:57:52
Neither Archer nor Taillon will fetch much from teams. The Pirates would be better off seeing what happens than to sell low, especially on Archer.