MLB Trade Rumors Member Posts

• Login
• Register

Chi Sox's Profile

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

22 Dec 2023 17:44:51
Some Dylan Cease Trade Packages:

Baltimore Orioles:

Coby Mayo 3B/1B/RF
Joey Ortiz SS
Trace Bright RHP
Carlos Tavera RHP

New York Yankees:

Jasson Dominguez OF
Oswald Peraza SS
Luis Gil RHP
Luis Velasquez RHP

New York Mets:

Drew Gilbert OF
Jett Williams OF/SS
Dominic Hamel RHP
Nate Lavender LHP

Los Angeles Dodgers:

Emmett Sheehan RHP
Andy Pages OF
Ricky Vanasco RHP
Hunter Feduccia C

Cincinnati Reds:
Noelvi Marte INF
Chase Petty RHP
Hunter Hollan LHP
Hector Rodriguez OF

Boston Red Sox:

Ceddanne Rafaela UTL
Nick Yorke 2B
Wikelman Gonzalez RHP
Chase Meidroth 3B

Atlanta Braves:

AJ Smith-Shawver RHP
Hurston Waldrep RHP
Vaughn Grissom SS/2B
Luis Sanchez INF

Arizona Diamondbacks:

*With Eloy Jimenez also included*

Druw Jones OF
Tommy Troy 2B
Yu-Min Lin LHP
Spencer Giesting LHP
Wilderd Patiño OF

1.) 04 Jan 2024 12:35:35
This sort of gigantic haul would make sense if the White Sox were trading away the 2022 version of Dylan Cease.

Cease has two years of team control and still maintains tremendous upside, but there's no chance a team is paying this sort of price for Cease after the 2023 season he had.

I think Cease makes more sense as a trade deadline guy, as teams will want to see what he's done and there may be more desperation.

2.) 14 Jan 2024 17:16:13
Cease's 3.7 fWAR was the 18th best among pitchers in 2023. His 12.6 fWAR is the 8th best over the last 3 seasons.

His ERA was 2.38 runs higher in 2024 despite only 0.62 rise in FIP. He suffered a 70-point (! ) BABIP rise.

He was better in 2022, but he's still an ace.

3.) 15 Jan 2024 19:12:40
Dylan Cease's projections put him around similar production to Marcus Stroman and Shota Imanaga.

He's a solid pitcher, but no one is gutting the top-end of their farm system for him.

4.) 15 Jan 2024 22:07:19
He nets a top-50 player and another in the top 85-120.

5.) 15 Jan 2024 22:14:30
"He's a solid pitcher" - yes, the 8th best in baseball over the last three years. Very solid indeed.

6.) 16 Jan 2024 02:10:07
No one is paying that price for a player who projects to be as good as Marcus Stroman next year LMAOOOO.

They could still get a really good return for Cease if they realize that Cease is not going to repeat his 2022. All projections have him as worse than 2023. But if they want to demand 2022 prices, then they can screw up their shot at getting on with their rebuild.

That window closed FAST!

7.) 16 Jan 2024 02:55:03
What about Cease, heading into his age 28 season, makes you so confident that his best days are behind him despite him being a consistent 1 or 2 starter over the past 3 seasons?


They should demand a price for a guy that has been the 8th best pitcher in baseball over the last three seasons who still has a TON of upside. If they don't get it, then wait until the deadline. The guy has never been close to the IL. He struggled mightily through stretches last season and still wound up with a top-20 season for a SP. He's a stud.

He's 4.3 wins better than Stroman over the last three seasons & Steamer has Cease more than a half-win better than Stroman in '24. The comparison makes no sense - not sure what you're getting at.

8.) 16 Jan 2024 03:42:02
Being projected as a a “half-win” better than Stroman for 2024 is kind of making my point. Teams aren’t giving up anywhere close to the return you’re suggesting for a guy who is barely projected to be better than Stroman or Imanaga.

You’re asking teams, who are already hesitant to give up massive returns by way of prospects, to give up huge returns for a guy coming off a pretty bad year and projected to be worse in 2024.

There is just no reason for any team to do that. And there’s no reason for the White Sox to further diminish Cease’s value. They HAVE to drop the asking price. There’s a good return out there for Dylan Cease. But it’s foolish if this is what they insist on.

9.) 16 Jan 2024 12:19:14
It's a 1-2 SP for $8 million, there's a ton of surplus here. Are there only 17 pitchers coming off anything better than a "pretty bad year"?

plus the Sox holding Cease could hurt his value, or it could help. He could very well be more valuable in July than he is now if he returns to '22 form, and there's no reason to suggest why he can't do that.

Luis Castillo is a good package comp here. Very similar age, production, control.

10.) 16 Jan 2024 13:19:46
"It's a 1-2 SP for $8 million"

That's not true, though, because you're ALSO giving up multiple of your top prosepcts to land Dylan Cease. So you're losing a ton of value there.

In each of these trades, you have teams giving up 18-24 years of team control for two years of control on Cease. At even 1.0 WAR per season of control, that's 18 WAR for, what, 5-6 WAR over the next two?

You're asking teams to pay 3-4 times what Cease is likely to give you? Yeah, that's ludicrous. No team is going to pay that right now.

11.) 17 Jan 2024 13:55:17
Yes, this is how trades work my man. lol.

The team is acquiring a current frontline starter at a crazy low salary in exchange for prospects who may turn out to produce 18 WAR, but may also never make the major leagues. Don't overthink this for the sake of arguing.

12.) 17 Jan 2024 16:35:52
Right, and I'm telling you, matter of factly, no team is going to give up 18-24 years of control of their BEST PROSPECTS for a guy who is barely better than Marcus Stroman by way of projections.

That's not "overhinking this for the sake of arguing. " It's telling you the reality: Dylan Cease is not as valuable as you think he is.

Then again, you thought Rick Hahn was the greatest GM of all-time, and we all saw how that ended. Maybe your opinions aren't as great as you think they are.

13.) 17 Jan 2024 21:34:31
"Right, and I'm telling you, matter of factly, no team is going to give up 18-24 years of control of their BEST PROSPECTS for a guy who is barely better than Marcus Stroman by way of projections. "

The Mariners very recently did this exact thing for Luis Castillo.

The Astros traded their top 2 prospects for a 40 year old Verlander.

etc, etc.


He's the 8th best starting pitcher in Major League Baseball over the last three seasons that still possesses additional upside on essentially a 2-year, $20 million contract. You're lost, per usual.

14.) 18 Jan 2024 17:30:58
You're willfully ignoring a crucial detail: Justin Verlander and Luis Castillo were both better pitchers than Marcus Stroman, by a considerable margin.

Dylan Cease is likely not that much better.

No one, I repeat NO ONE, cares what Dylan Cease's 2022 fWAR was. It's becoming evident that 2022 was a pure fluke for him, between the extremely low BABIP and the low HR/ FB%. They all can see that Cease isn't going to match the production again.

Again, the White Sox could get a really solid return for Dylan Cease. There's a solid return that is far less than what you're suggesting for him.

But if Chris Getz doesn't get real with the pricetag, he's going to pull a Rick Hahn and completely bungle the window of opportunity he has before him.

15.) 19 Jan 2024 04:35:23
"It's becoming evident that 2022 was a pure fluke for him"

His '21 fWAR was higher, yet I'm the one who's "willfully ignoring a crucial detail". Again, he's the 8th best pitcher in baseball over the LAST THREE SEASONS. It's not a fluke.

Cease has made 97 start over the last three seasons and has put up a 12.6 fWAR. He will pitch 2024 at 28 years old.

In the 97 starts before Castillo was traded, he put up a 12.9 fWAR and he was traded at 29 years old. The return should be almost identical.

Those damn facts always seem to bitecha', Nate.

16.) 20 Jan 2024 13:51:32
I don't know what part of "his 2022 stats don't matter" made you not only ignore that part, but you went FURTHER BACK in your assessment.

Teams absolutely will not care what Dylan Cease did in 2021, either. I seriously don't know why that's so hard for you.

He's an extreme fly-ball pitcher who was in the 32nd percentile in HardHit% and 23rd in EV. His chase rate went down. His velocity went down. The HardHit% and avg. EV went UP.

Things aren't trending the right way, and thus, we get a pretty lousy projection for him.

Could he buck that trend? Of course he could. But no team is going to give up the premium to bet against that trend.

As far as "fluke" goes, go look at his Statcast metrics. 2023 was directly in line with every other season he's had. 2022 was a fluke and, again, the projections pretty much seem to reflect this.

2021 was a higher fWAR because his K-rate was a full 1.18 K/ 9 higher and his walk-rate was lower. His K/ BB% was 2.4% better in 2021.

It's almost like, and hear me out, the trends have continued to get worse! Man, those damn facts always seem to bitecha', Geronimo.

17.) 21 Jan 2024 15:47:01
I'm not denying that his '23 peripherals were worse, but calling a 4.4 WAR season a "fluke" when it was bookended by a 4.5-win season and a 3.7-win season is kinda funny. You're just talking.

His Statcast metrics fell off the table in '23, and yet he still put up a 3.7-wins season and was a top-20 pitcher in baseball. What does that say about how good he is? If those bounce back even a little bit in 2024, he's a 4+-win pitcher once again.

And you think that teams only care about 2023 performance when evaluating players? 2022 and 2021 can just be completely thrown out? That's ridiculous.

Take the Castillo return (which is clearly a pretty great comp) and work from there. Yet there's no pressure to trade him now. Even you agreed with that.

18.) 21 Jan 2024 23:29:09
Castillo wasn't coming off a significant downward trend in his Statcast metrics when he was traded, Cease is. Hence why your comparison isn't working here.

The Cease situation is awkward. There's no pressure to trade him now, but every day he plays in a White Sox uniform is a day closer to free agency for his acquiring team. A half-season less of team control is a pretty significant drop off.

The White Sox also have to bank on Cease bucking the projections by a rather hefty margin.

Could he get there? Of course he *could* (I'm not bankning on it) . But this is all getting to where I've been: there's no one who is making that trade NOW. And likely not many who will make that trade later on.

And no, teams aren't going to care about what a pitcher did THREE SEASONS AGO. They might factor it in when running their projections, but that's about it. Dylan Cease's 2021 numbers are about as irrelevant to teams as Brandon Crawford's 2021 numbers.

Teams aren't getting 2021 or 2022 Dylan Cease. They are getting 2024 Dylan Cease, who has 361 IP more and a full 1.0 mph drop in velocity since, along with all the other concerning drops in Statcast metrics.

2021/ 2022 Dylan Cease likely doesn't exist anymore.

19.) 22 Jan 2024 01:01:31
"A half-season less of team control is a pretty significant drop off. "

Right, and this is why Castillo and Cease, despite some concerns with Cease's stuff in '23, are more equivalent than you think given Cease has another half-season of control.

"They are getting 2024 Dylan Cease, who has 361 IP more and a full 1.0 mph drop in velocity since, along with all the other concerning drops in Statcast metrics.

2021/ 2022 Dylan Cease likely doesn't exist anymore. "

Yeah, that one mph of lost velo is long gone for the 28 year old who has never been on the IL. He's cooked.

20.) 22 Jan 2024 12:51:52
"He's cooked. "

Look, I know you're more interested in arguing in bad faith (it's all you know how to do), but this is a bad look, even for you.

Saying there's not confidence he'll get to those 2021-2022 numbers again doesn't mean he's cooked. There's still, as you have put it, a solid pitcher there.

But teams aren't gutting the upper part of their farm system for a "solid pitcher. " Those prices are asking teams to believe they can get the 2021/ 2022 Dylan Cease again. Is there a team that feels that way? Possibly, but I'm not banking on it.

That's been my point. You have to reflect how teams will likely feel about Cease GOING FORWARD. The projections don't even believe he'll return to those old seasons in 2024. I seriously doubt teams will believe, especially when it costs them the return you're saying it will.

It's just not going to happen.

The White Sox have an avenue to get a really, really good return for Dylan Cease. But if this is what they continue to insist on, they are going to watch his value continue to tank.

But then again, this is what we should expect from the White Sox, who think that hiring the guy their FIRED GM hired was a good idea.

21.) 26 Jan 2024 20:23:01
ZiPs has Cease twice as valuable as Stroman. LOL!

22.) 29 Jan 2024 13:13:18
LOL. Nothing more "Chi Sox" than finding the most optimistic projection and running with it because it matches your view!

The irony is that the variance in projections upholds the point I'm making, not you. That Cease has range of 0.7 WAR on his projections (a non-insignificant total, according to you) is a pretty large blight against his trade value, no?

The fact that teams don't know which Dylan Cease they are getting is precisely why I don't think any of them are making anything remotely close to the trade you've hinted at.

23.) 14 Mar 2024 15:51:15
OOf. One top 100 prospect and some guys with comically high variance.

The White Sox made a good deal for Cease, but you VASTLY over-estimated that deal.

Makes it kind of difficult to appreciate a good deal when Chi Sox' projection ceiling was the absolute moon+.

24.) 15 Mar 2024 06:17:39
Yeah not quite as much as these packages, but they still made out really well. 2 top 75s by Fangraphs and a really fun prospect in Zavala who could very well end up being the best player in the deal on either side. The list of guys that have put up a 140+ wRC+ in A-ball at 18 years old is insane.

Plus Wilson who has really good peripherals that can be flipped later.

Getz has taken arguably the worst farm in baseball and now has it comfortably in the top-10 in less than a year. This team is going to be bad, but I'm intrigued by the direction.

25.) 17 Mar 2024 19:42:41
Man, it's almost as if I was correct in saying that no one was paying the price tag you suggested for a depreciating asset of a pitcher.

Weird that I'm dead right yet again.

26.) 18 Mar 2024 02:54:18
Monumental W for you my man. Huge congrats.

15 Jan 2023 04:33:09
Twins/Marlins

Twins Get:
Pablo Lopez RHP

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

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

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


White Sox Get:
Gleyber Torres 2B

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

1.) 03 Jan 2023 16:33:57
I'd normally say the A's should shoot for higher, but they also just settled for Esteury Ruiz and middling prospects for Sean Murphy, so who knows what's going on there.

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

2.) 03 Jan 2023 22:35:14
Gleyber Torres, Shortstop? I don't think that's a great idea for the acquiring team, even if Cashman promises he can do it (just not for them) .

3.) 04 Jan 2023 13:36:12
However Torres is billed, I think there'd be enough interest that the Yankees could do better than an expensive reliever who can't find the strike zone and Seth Brown (I admit, Brown is rather good) .

4.) 04 Jan 2023 13:56:36
I'm also curious how a guy with -6 DRS and a 6th Percentile OAA classifies as "will play a good LF. "

Brown was objectively horrible defensively last season.

5.) 04 Jan 2023 19:03:36
You got to look a little deeper - the details matter. Brown was above average as a LF last year (where the Yankees would play him), and has been +3 OAA in the outfield for his career.

6.) 24 Jan 2023 19:24:21
The White Sox should probably ask for a pitcher now. You know, with Mike Clevinger being a scumbag and all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.) 21 Dec 2022 13:11:04
Wow! You know so much about a story that neither party has said ANYTHING about publicly! Please, enlighten us about your sources.

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

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

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

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

2.) 21 Dec 2022 13:14:29
And if you think walking away from a player regarding a medical issue is the same as being on board with hiring a manager with MULTIPLE DUI ARRESTS, who ultimately eroded the morale of his own clubhouse which led to him "resigning" (read: fancy word for agreeing to be fired) midseason when his team couldn't even squeak out a playoff spot in one of the worst divisions top-to-bottom in baseball history.

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

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

3.) 21 Dec 2022 15:52:23
Just a brutal offseason for the Giants faithful so far. You go from getting "Arson Judge" & Carlos Correa to Mitch Haniger & probably like Jean Segura or something. Oof! Hate to see it.

4.) 21 Dec 2022 18:05:54
Literally every indication is that the Giants ownership was the one that backed out from the deal, not the front office.

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

5.) 21 Dec 2022 18:08:06
"Just a brutal offseason for the Giants faithful so far. You go from getting "Arson Judge" & Carlos Correa to Mitch Haniger & probably like Jean Segura or something. "

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

6.) 21 Dec 2022 19:49:41
Imagine signing Andrew Benintendi to a $75M deal and thinking someone else had a bad offseason.

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

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

7.) 21 Dec 2022 21:11:02
You trash Clevinger like the Giants didn't just commit more money to Sean Manaea who had a worse xRV than Clevinger in 2022.

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

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

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

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

That's actually hilarious.

8.) 21 Dec 2022 22:40:55
"You trash Benintendi like the Giants didn't just give Mitch Haniger, a guy that averaged 106 games per season with Seattle, an AAV that's only 500k less than Benintendi"

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

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

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

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

9.) 21 Dec 2022 22:51:02
"your projected leadoff hitter is Thairo Estrada and 5 hitter is literally Wilmer Flores (LMAOOOO) . "

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's Yoan Moncada.

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

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

10.) 21 Dec 2022 23:03:46
Guys Thairo Estrada had a higher fWAR in 2022 than (he had 2.7 fWAR)

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

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

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

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

Seriously, you can't make this up.

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

11.) 22 Dec 2022 01:00:15
Why don't you guys just get along. Lol.

12.) 22 Dec 2022 05:53:54
"Guys Thairo Estrada had a higher fWAR in 2022 than (he had 2.7 fWAR)

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

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

Yeah, let's just ignore blatantly obvious context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Correa news has you all messed up it appears.

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

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

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

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

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

14.) 22 Dec 2022 13:39:50
"If Benintendi is a "weak-hitting, slow-footed, average defender", then that's not good news for Haniger and the Giants. "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15.) 22 Dec 2022 14:11:14
Finally:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17.) 22 Dec 2022 18:57:07
"But yet you bash the White Sox for a Clevinger signing like Ethan Katz hasn't fixed guys like Giolito, Rodon, Lopez, etc. in his short tenure with the club. "

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

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

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

As far as xRV goes, I found the site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

18.) 22 Dec 2022 20:21:17
"And to make the situation with Giolito worse, Katz was his HS coach! LOL. "

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

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

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

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

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

19.) 22 Dec 2022 20:32:42
And there we have it.

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

20.) 22 Dec 2022 22:34:47
Literally every bit of local reporting for the Giants is pointing that Charles Johnson wanted out. It was Farhan Zaidi who did what he was told and tried to renegotiate. Boras and Correa didn't want to renegotiate. (And the whole 12 hours of radio silence bit was a total lie, for what it's worth. Boras didn't answer the phone. )

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

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

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

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

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

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

21.) 22 Dec 2022 22:53:23
Was it a bad look? Of course it was. The optics aren't great.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24.) 23 Dec 2022 16:42:27
Yes, how dare they sign him to a 13-year deal worth $350M.

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

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

25.) 23 Dec 2022 16:50:07
And look man, I get it, you're bummed that the White Sox only added Benintendi and Clevinger. And to think, they spent $87M on those deals.

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

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

26.) 29 Dec 2022 14:31:08
Regarding the original comment about Zaidi versus Hahn, it's comical you can't see the difference between a GM possibly having different feelings about a marquee FA than his ownership and, I don't know, willingly hiring a multiple-DUI offender and just going along with it.

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

27.) 29 Dec 2022 17:45:58
My guy, you legitimately made the argument that pre-arb extensions that both parties willingly agree to were racist, and root for a team and promote a GM who not only just botched on of their biggest FA acquisitions in team history, but willingly works under a QAnon-donanting owner.

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

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

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

28.) 29 Dec 2022 22:54:17
"The Giants owner and primary shareholder writes checks to the alt-right, and it's no surprise that their ENTIRE projected major league roster consists of 5 minority players. "

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

-They hired a Muslim as their President of Baseball Operations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such alt-right activity taking place!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31.) 30 Dec 2022 22:50:46
Don't overthink it.

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

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

32.) 31 Dec 2022 02:55:52
"Primary shareholder"

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

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

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

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

33.) 31 Dec 2022 04:23:00
"a pathetic excuse of an owner who micromanages his baseball team by overruling his front office and hiring a drunk as a manager, but most teams allow their front office to do the work and have little involvement in the day-to-day operations of the team. "

Buddy, you are preaching to the choir here.

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

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

34.) 31 Dec 2022 05:15:58
Primary shareholder doesn't mean "makes all the decisions"

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

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

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

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

35.) 31 Dec 2022 05:57:04
Jerry Reinsdorf also has questionable political contributions. No surprise Chi Sox doesn't address these.

According to OpenSecrets:

$2,800 to election denier Kelly Loeffler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36.) 01 Jan 2023 18:08:05
Donating directly to QAnon vs. Conservative politicians is not the same, for the record. There's a reason why there are multiple stories about Johnson's actions and not these donations from Reinsdorf. If it were a big deal, the Chicago media would be all over it, trust me. Like you said, Reinsdorf's actions are not atypical.

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

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

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

37.) 02 Jan 2023 03:47:13
Also, you've propped up the "but TLR has been fired" nonsense several times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously, run along.

38.) 02 Jan 2023 18:10:53
"One of the most ridiculous sports takes I have ever heard - probably something you read from Vox or the New York times that you were eager to share. "

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

39.) 02 Jan 2023 20:42:25
You're still not denying the "re-arb extensions are racist" take!

Dude!

40.) 03 Jan 2023 16:34:57
You're still not denying the "Giants operate like an alt-right team" take!

Dude!

41.) 03 Jan 2023 22:52:42
I simply made an observation about the Giants' owner and the composition of their current roster. You are choosing to draw conclusions that make the most sense to you.

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

42.) 04 Jan 2023 20:23:12
LMAO. You didn't make a conclusion?

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

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

At least my take isn't remotely original.

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

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

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

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

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

43.) 05 Jan 2023 06:18:12
See, you're now grouping service time manipulation with pre-arb extensions. They're not the same thing. You're now changing the subject. The latter is an agreement that is voluntary by both parties. Calling these extensions "exploitive" is foolish.

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

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

44.) 05 Jan 2023 15:25:07
"See, you're now grouping service time manipulation with pre-arb extensions. "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lineup:

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

Bench:

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

Rotation:

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

Bullpen:

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

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

29 Mar 2023 03:40:28
2023 MLB Predictions

AL East:

1. Yankees (93-69) [2]
2. Rays (90-72) [5]
3. Blue Jays (88-74) [6]
4. Red Sox (81-81)
5. Orioles (80-82)

AL Central:

1. Guardians (88-74) [3]
2. White Sox (84-78)
3. Twins (83-79)
4. Royals (65-97)
5. Tigers (63-99)

AL West:

1. Astros (102-60) [1]
2. Mariners (92-70) [4]
3. Angels (80-82)
4. Rangers (77-85)
5. Athletics (56-106)

NL East:

1. Phillies (97-65) [2]
2. Braves (93-69) [4]
3. Mets (90-72) [6]
4. Marlins (78-84)
5. Nationals (54-108)

NL Central:

1. Cardinals (94-68) [3]
2. Brewers (85-77)
3. Cubs (76-86)
4. Pirates (68-94)
5. Reds (61-101)

NL West:

1. Dodgers (98-64) [1]
2. Padres (93-69) [5]
3. Diamondbacks (81-81)
4. Giants (78-84)
5. Rockies (63-99)

AL Wild Card: Guardians over Blue Jays (2-0), Mariners over Rays (2-1)
NL Wild Card: Mets over Cardinals (2-0), Braves over Padres (2-1)

ALDS: Guardians over Yankees (3-2), Mariners over Astros (3-2)
NLDS: Phillies over Mets (3-0), Dodgers over Braves (3-1)

ALCS: Mariners over Guardians (4-2)
NLCS: Dodgers over Phillies (4-3)

World Series: Dodgers over Mariners (4-1)

Awards:

AL MVP: Shohei Ohtani - Angels
NL MVP: Ronald Acuna Jr. - Braves

AL Cy Young: Framber Valdez - Astros
NL CY Young: Aaron Nola - Phillies

AL ROY: Gunnar Henderson - Orioles
NL ROY: Corbin Carroll - Diamondbacks

AL MOY: Terry Francona - Guardians
NL MOY: Dave Roberts - Dodgers

1.) 29 Mar 2023 13:04:06
Dang. Things must be rough when you're not even predicting the "AL Equivalent to the Dodgers" aren't even making the playoffs.

And putting the Giants at 78 wins is just trolling at this point. It would be the worst record Gabe Kapler has had with the Giants, all the while with objectively his best team.

But no one has ever accused you of having reasonable takes regarding the Giants, so why start now?

2.) 29 Mar 2023 14:38:05
I mean you obviously watch more Giants than me, but saying this year's roster is the best Kapler has had is interesting. I don't agree with that at all.

They're betting on 75th+ percentile outcomes from a TON of guys to make the postseason.

No trolling, I don't expect them to be very good.

3.) 29 Mar 2023 17:25:54
They have the best bullpen, top to bottom, they've had with Kapler.

They have the deepest rotation I think I can ever recall them having in my time on this earth, with 7 legitimate starting options. This doesn't even include Sean Hjelle or a potential Kyle Harrison addition later on.

They added 30 HR potential in Michael Conforto while losing just Brandon Belt and Evan Longoria offensively. Guys like Yaz and Joc Pederson won't be affected as severely by the shift.

This is, objectively, Kapler's best Giants team.

Your prediction is anywhere from 4-10 wins below the projections of the experts. Meanwhile, you're projecting the White Sox are anywhere from 3-10 wins BETTER?

Yeah, pardon me for not buying what you're selling.

4.) 29 Mar 2023 22:34:08
It can't "objectively" be his best team before they play a single game. That's not what "objectively" means.

If Conforto has "30 HR potential" (playing half his games in SF, mind you) with a 15 total projection from THE BAT X, then boy, the White Sox have 8 regulars with 30-homer potential too.

And the Giants swapped Rodon for Manaea who was more than a full run worse by botERA (well, would you lookie there - look which metric got added to FanGraphs. Legit enough for ya now? ) .

They added Stripling, but does he have a better outlook than DeSclafani did coming into last year? No. Otherwise, the rotation is exactly the same as last year.

The rotation depth is good, but I don't think it moves the needle for them above anything other than a .500 team. Just my opinion.

5.) 30 Mar 2023 01:36:47
And I know you're keen on the opinion of "experts", but ESPN & FanGraphs agree with my last statement.

6.) 30 Mar 2023 12:16:30
ZiPS projected the Giants to win 87 games.

They projected the White Sox to win 74.

But I can fully understand why you'd all of a sudden dismiss ZiPS. I don't entirely blame you.

7.) 30 Mar 2023 12:25:54
As far as Manaea is concerned, no one has accused you of paying attention, so I won't begin to do so either.

However, a few notes:

1. He worked with Driveline this offseason and the effects were pretty obvious this Spring. His velocity is up by 3mph.

2. Manaea has really focused on his sinker, which has been highly effective. That sinker is why the Giants acquired him. It's why they went for Alex Cobb. It's why they like Alex Wood. They seem to know what they are doing when it comes to guys with sinnkers.

3. Cherry-pick whichever bizarre metric you'd wish, here's what we know about Manaea's 2022 season (which, frankly, doesn't matter anymore) : he was a full run LOWER by xERA. He was a half-run lower by FIP. I won't use xFIP with you, because now that it is no longer favorable to your argument, you dismiss is (again, you're the most predictable person ever) .

But surprise, surprise, nearly every projection has Manaea performing at his xERA from 2022. I suspect if they were able to quantify the changes he made this winter, that number would be even lower.

You've already convinced me you don't know what you're talking about, you don't have to continue to sell the point.

8.) 30 Mar 2023 12:30:18
"If Conforto has "30 HR potential" (playing half his games in SF, mind you) with a 15 total projection from THE BAT X, then boy, the White Sox have 8 regulars with 30-homer potential too. "

For someone who LOVES projections*, you sure seem to ignore the realities, don't you?

Of course Conforto is going to be around 15-19 HR via projection systems. The systems can't operate knowing if he's healthy. They can't account for changes he made. Conforto had 14 HR in 2021 and ZERO in 2022. Why would any projection, mathematically, give him a number in the 20s? That makes no sense.

His four seasons prior: 27, 28, 33, 27 (it was 9, but adjusted to 27 for 162 games) . Dang, it's almost like, I don't know, Michael Conforto has 30-home run potential.

Crazy how that works.



*Chi Sox only loves projections when they are favorable to his argument. And he consistently uses the most favorable for White Sox, and the least favorable for the Giants.

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

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+.

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.

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.

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.

Chi Sox's rumour replies

Click To View This Thread

18 Mar 2024 02:54:18
Monumental W for you my man. Huge congrats.

Click To View This Thread

15 Mar 2024 06:17:39
Yeah not quite as much as these packages, but they still made out really well. 2 top 75s by Fangraphs and a really fun prospect in Zavala who could very well end up being the best player in the deal on either side. The list of guys that have put up a 140+ wRC+ in A-ball at 18 years old is insane.

Plus Wilson who has really good peripherals that can be flipped later.

Getz has taken arguably the worst farm in baseball and now has it comfortably in the top-10 in less than a year. This team is going to be bad, but I'm intrigued by the direction.

Click To View This Thread

26 Jan 2024 20:23:01
ZiPs has Cease twice as valuable as Stroman. LOL!

Click To View This Thread

22 Jan 2024 01:01:31
"A half-season less of team control is a pretty significant drop off. "

Right, and this is why Castillo and Cease, despite some concerns with Cease's stuff in '23, are more equivalent than you think given Cease has another half-season of control.

"They are getting 2024 Dylan Cease, who has 361 IP more and a full 1.0 mph drop in velocity since, along with all the other concerning drops in Statcast metrics.

2021/ 2022 Dylan Cease likely doesn't exist anymore. "

Yeah, that one mph of lost velo is long gone for the 28 year old who has never been on the IL. He's cooked.

Click To View This Thread

21 Jan 2024 15:47:01
I'm not denying that his '23 peripherals were worse, but calling a 4.4 WAR season a "fluke" when it was bookended by a 4.5-win season and a 3.7-win season is kinda funny. You're just talking.

His Statcast metrics fell off the table in '23, and yet he still put up a 3.7-wins season and was a top-20 pitcher in baseball. What does that say about how good he is? If those bounce back even a little bit in 2024, he's a 4+-win pitcher once again.

And you think that teams only care about 2023 performance when evaluating players? 2022 and 2021 can just be completely thrown out? That's ridiculous.

Take the Castillo return (which is clearly a pretty great comp) and work from there. Yet there's no pressure to trade him now. Even you agreed with that.

Chi Sox's banter replies

Click To View This Thread

07 Apr 2023 06:03:54
Haha I knew this was coming. Props to the Giants for taking advantage of some brutal Sox pitching this weekend. 13 homers is impressive.

Kopech looked to be tipping and Lynn had God awful stuff. Cease wasn't even close to his best but he's just that good. Aces gonna ace.

I'll take a 4-2 record against the Giants over the last 2 seasons. It was pretty much the opposite in San Fran in '22, except the Sox swept. Giants tried to, but our ace is better than your's.

Both teams have 3 wins this year. I'm not particularly moved by either so far.

"For all the talk Chi Sox did, this was an utterly embarrassing series for his team. "

I'm not sure how this is the case? I picked both teams to miss the playoffs and the Giants just won a series 2-1 in early-April. Go off, I guess?

Click To View This Thread

30 Mar 2023 01:36:47
And I know you're keen on the opinion of "experts", but ESPN & FanGraphs agree with my last statement.

Click To View This Thread

29 Mar 2023 22:34:08
It can't "objectively" be his best team before they play a single game. That's not what "objectively" means.

If Conforto has "30 HR potential" (playing half his games in SF, mind you) with a 15 total projection from THE BAT X, then boy, the White Sox have 8 regulars with 30-homer potential too.

And the Giants swapped Rodon for Manaea who was more than a full run worse by botERA (well, would you lookie there - look which metric got added to FanGraphs. Legit enough for ya now? ) .

They added Stripling, but does he have a better outlook than DeSclafani did coming into last year? No. Otherwise, the rotation is exactly the same as last year.

The rotation depth is good, but I don't think it moves the needle for them above anything other than a .500 team. Just my opinion.

Click To View This Thread

29 Mar 2023 14:38:05
I mean you obviously watch more Giants than me, but saying this year's roster is the best Kapler has had is interesting. I don't agree with that at all.

They're betting on 75th+ percentile outcomes from a TON of guys to make the postseason.

No trolling, I don't expect them to be very good.

Click To View This Thread

01 Jan 2023 18:28:14
Kiermaier is so good in the outfield that if he stays healthy, he's a minimum 2-win player. He's better than JBJ because he's shown over his career that he has a playable offensive floor. He's never had lower that a 79 wRC+ in a season, and isn't even a complete dud against LHP.

Hernandez's power production should bounce back at least somewhat, but that lineup wasn't exactly starved for right-handed power. Plus his $15+ million arb projection was more than they were willing to pay. Getting Swanson for him was a nice move.

Varsho being able to catch allows to you still comfortably be able to DH Kirk or Jansen also.

Arizona get more right handed and a really good young catcher in Moreno.