nrockway

I was surprised by this. He had a 6.2 WAR season in 2022 while OPSing .725, his best season by far. I think that season's doing the heavy lifting, and I'm skeptical about how 'defensive' WAR is calculated. He played a ton of SS that year and was apparently a positive defender. I think the WAR calculation for shortstops is screwed up or otherwise that the defensive positional adjustment doesn't reflect reality particularly well. Guys can rack up WAR just by being penciled in at SS, meanwhile nobody really knows how to quantify a good catcher performance. Fangraphs tries to integrate 'framing' into their WAR calculation, but then Yasmani Groundball is suddenly in Hall of Fame discussion and has apparently produced twice as much WAR as Salvador Perez. Has Grandal been twice as good as Salvy over their respective careers? I don't think so, I'm not sure any baseball fan would even think that Grandal had a better career. I'm not sure the statistical analysis is revealing some hidden truth, I just think it's wrong. It should be validated, maybe I'm a moron and Groundball was actually that good. The comparison looks much different if you use baseball-reference's WAR calculation (the better one, in my opinion) and I think it's fun that there's still some mystery in baseball, it's just on the defensive or pitching side. Comparing Edman to Robert, Luis is clearly a better hitter. Statistically and eye test. I don't think it's really an argument. Edman doesn't particularly hit for contact or power. They are both oft-injured, but Tommy was healthier more recently. I think he earned a very nice contract because of his playoff performance; and good for him, he's a nice player and he earned it. But Robert is clearly the better player. I guess Edman plays all over the field and performs reasonably well, but Robert is (I think inarguably) the best defensive center fielder in the league. That guy has some special, built-in, un-teachable talent to know exactly where the ball is going off the bat. He should teach Benetti. He makes difficult plays look easy because he has a special combination of speed and brain. I'd hope Getz and co are selling that point, he's the best defensive player at a premium position who will also hit 35+ bombs for the next 3 years for no money. It's not a fair comparison is basically my point

does your history teacher enjoy reading David Brooks and does he dislike the meritocracy? my dad sent me some article that Brooks wrote a couple weeks ago, one line reads, " [such and such] led to the defenestration of multiple Ivy League presidents", so naturally my first instinct is to tell SoxTalk.

Maybe. This is likely true of any player worth signing. I bet a guy like Hays might see an opportunity to bat against both sides instead of being part of a platoon on a good team. Not saying we should go out and sign this guy, I'd rather watch Colas, only that bad teams can be pretty good landing spots for mediocre players. In terms of signable mediocre players, I wouldn't mind Dylan Carlson or Tauchmann, two guys who can sort of still play center field.

You got me, whoops, but you missed the forest for the trees. Why even write a couple paragraphs if you just pick out one 'gotcha' thing? Because I'm bored and a little under the weather, I guess. You did get me though. Still, you could reply to the actual point being made. If you're going to make this sort of analysis, you need to do it for every team and do it over multiple seasons. There are bad teams every season, I bet you could find a World Series champion that had a lousy opponent or two in their division. Bad teams will always 'help' their opponents, but it's not really fair to single out one team. I'm calling on someone to check 1962 box scores: did the Dodgers have a better record than the Giants against the Mets? Maybe the Dodgers win that World Series and change the history books... Frankly, this logic holds even less weight since the scheduling changes.

So if the White Sox are an average to good team, they are reversing that record and going 12-1 against the Royals? That seems atypical and unlikely. Looks like like they could've gone 3-10 against the Sox and been above .500. I figured the Royals offseason decisions were going to be stupid and amount to nothing, and I was wrong. They were actually a good team. They are probably still making the postseason, they especially are if you take the worst team out of every other division like we apparently are doing only for the AL Central in this thought experiment. Credit where credit is due, I think, my point is you don't need to poopoo another team in order to trash the Sox. They make it easy enough. I don't think the Royals are actually that good outside of Witt, but the AL Central is not that competitive and I tend to think they lucked into some wins, as opposed to the Sox simply handed them 12 free wins in games they otherwise would have lost. I think we take precedence a little too seriously. I blame our legal system. You can't really predict these things based on last year's data or even three years of data. There are too many compounding factors. A lot of fans didn't think Crochet would pitch 100+ innings solely because it's typically uncommon for a guy to go from 54, 0, 12 innings pitched to 146. Of course, your elbow doesn't know how many times you threw a baseball or what the arbitrary limits are, it's context dependent. This is to say, the Royals made a big leap and went from a bottom-feeder to a playoff team. They did it in an unprecedented way, but I think it's underselling their team to say the Sox are the reason why they were a surprisingly good team. I think they got lucky and won't be as good next year. Cleveland continually proves to be the only team worth worrying about.

Sure, but if the Sox ever get public money, it’s not going in front of the voters. Illinois is different than Missouri that way. The team will figure something out with the legislature. I might start advocating to my state rep about what I want that to look like. Thus far, my plea that the state or city take over the failing team has fallen on deaf ears. We did it with General Motors, we’re talking about doing it with ComEd, why not the White Sox?

no they weren't. amusingly enough, the Royals were over .500 because they want a new ballpark. Their dumb ownership just did it a year too late (dumb for even letting it go in front of voters).

I'm not so sure Montgomery is that guy. We could've just drafted him, right? To me he looks like a corner outfielder that will quickly become a DH. I think Boston has a bunch of good players though. I'd really like to see Rafaela on the (appropriately-colored) Sox but I don't think he's the main piece you want back. His bat wasn't so good last year but his defensive versatility would be a good fit after Robert is traded and our Montgomery inevitably moves off SS. Mayer seems like a pipedream but maybe his injury history drops his status a bit; but would hate to wind up with another one of Boston's injury-riddled infield prospects. Mayer, Rafaela, Bleis for Crochet seems like a good starting point for a trade negotiation. Boston probably says no, so maybe you add in Robert and Boston adds Willkommen Gonzalez.

I tend to think, if you're dealing with contracts at that dollar amount, the player is probably more concerned with where he can get consistent playing time and have an opportunity to play himself into a multi-year contract. I don't imagine he's thinking super hard about what the fans think about the owner or whatever. If you're a professional baseball player and your career is up in the air, are you going to want to play for a team that will give you 500 at bats or you would rather sit on the bench in Cleveland? what's a 'quality org' in that circumstance? would you rather be the janitor at a 'quality org' or in a position you enjoy doing at the 30th best org, if the money is the same?

That team was doomed the moment they fired Hinkie. I think this is a pretty good analogy except the Sixers had more playoff success and sustained it somewhat. I think you still wouldn't want to face them in the play-in. I guess Paul George is kind of like Benintendi. bad, old, overpaid....or Joe Kelly.

There is no risk in professional sports, I think we discussed on this forum how a pro sports franchise is a safer investment than the S&P 500, offering at least double the return. It seems to be the safest investment there is. Reinsdorf mismanaged $20mil into $2il, he didn't successfully run a business, he was rewarded for being incompetent and for gettin' in when the gettin' was good. What does Reinsdorf deserve? A pat on the back for his hard and intelligent work running the White Sox into the ground? For being old and independently wealthy? Seemingly he did some intelligent things to initially make his fortune, but he became a billionaire while failing to run the Sox. Professional sports ownership is basically just failing up, I think it's the antithesis of a meritocratic and democratic society. Think about what the city or state could do with that revenue, the taxpayer foots the bill for anything actually 'risky' in sports regardless, such as stadium construction. The public is taking a risk, the owner isn't, thus it might be nice to see some of that publicly-created wealth, maybe there could be a stream of revenue for public services besides property taxes. America has such incredible sports leagues and talented players because the public places a lot of cultural importance on it. The team owners don't need to do a thing to develop their workforce, the public does it for them. Sport is fundamentally a public good and it always has been in 'western' society, there is really no rational argument to make in favor of team owners. Your point is fair, if you're taking a risk, you might expect some financial reward. I just don't see what 'risks' the owners are taking. They are leeches on the public, welfare queens really, and leeches on the sport. I also am not claiming that the sport is broken, I love watching and talking about baseball, I just think there should be rules in place that support a competitive and fair environment, for the sake of the fans. World Series victories is not a particularly good way to measure parity either. They play 162 games for a reason and the playoffs are a crapshoot. It definitely helps though when your entire roster is highly-paid superstars. It's a band-aid for being unable to develop players internally, only a few teams can do it, and it tends to work. Ohtani wasn't particularly good in the postseason, neither was Judge. So does that mean a winning strategy is cross your fingers and hope your roster gives their best David Freese impression? You can still enjoy the sport and also not be blind to something pretty glaring. As previously mentioned, the other major leagues in the USA operate this way, why shouldn't the MLB?

Well, of course they will do that. You could make a similar point about any business, the point is to make money, and 'winning' and 'making money' are not necessarily connected. Seems to be the case in most industries that profit is closer connected to cost-cutting than to improving the product or service. I don't think you could really expect any corporation to regulate itself effectively which is why society makes rules for them to follow. I'm just suggesting that MLB be regulated more like the NBA or NFL, it's not a wild assertion. Basketball would be incredibly boring (well, more boring than it already is) if the Lakers trotted out five guys making $50mil a year versus 15 teams emulating 'The Process' Sixers. It also adds a fun dimension to team-building where giving out bad contracts actually matters. What if retained salary counted against a team's ability to sign free agents? Maybe the Mets don't pay $35mil to Scherzer to play for a different team, maybe they aren't rewarded with a great prospect in exchange for a bad contract. Also the 20 year cutoff seems a little arbitrary. Why not mention the Yankees? I think it's unfortunate that pretty much every 'great' player from eras past played for the Yankees. Yes, you can win at baseball without spending a ton of money, but why shouldn't every team be compelled to follow the same standards? Why should the system be laissez-faire when it has an impact on the quality of the sport? Disparate spending on payroll obviously has an impact on how teams perform and it makes the league less competitive.

Yes. It shouldn't even be a choice. It should be like every other sport. Why should we have faith that the team owner is going to 'do the right thing'? He should be compelled to 'do the right thing' and one team shouldn't be able to sign every single good free agent. The Dodgers are such an overrated team. When was the last time they actually produced a homegrown player that's any good? Miguel Vargas? Michael Busch? Pages? Lux? The only guys on their playoff roster that they can be credited for 'developing' weren't very good. It's easier to win at baseball when you can pay unlimited money to every superstar in the league. It isn't the 'only' thing, you can certainly win without spending a ton of money, so why isn't it a rule that every team has to spend within the same window? It objectively produces a non-competitive environment. It's the worst thing about professional baseball honestly.

Right, seems pointless to shop him now. If he can just hit for his career average numbers next season, he looks a whole lot better with only two years left on the deal. I can't imagine a scenario where the Sox eat $50 mil or whatever he's still owed. Some team might take on $30mil in salary if he can produce 3 WAR next season.

Totally agree. I just don't see why you'd keep a guy like that in AAA. It's not like there's anybody blocking him. Do you think he's a softie and his MLB career will be over the second he sees a pitch he can't hit? Perhaps. Better to learn that sooner than later though; especially in a down year, I think. If the team wants to compete in 2026, might be nice to realize you need a SS/3B and it's an easier decision to make if Montgomery takes 500ish at bats in 2025. I don't think he's going to 'save' the franchise, I just want to see if he's any good. I'm optimistic. Seems like a hard worker with a nice attitude, confident yet realistic. Realism suggests he's the opening day SS. I'll eat my Birmingham Barons hat if he's not (the hat I have on, some guy asked me tonight if it was a Red Sox hat...what you get when you go north. 'Oh are you from Alabama?' I digress). I tend to think another year in MILB is just going to be detrimental. What do you think about the coaching staff point? Should the same losers be allowed to work with him? The minor league coaches seem to be failing, this new hitting coach might be pretty good. The mailman asked me for a lighter the other day so he could light up his blunt in his federal vehicle and we talked about the hitting coach specifically, for some reason. I thought it was a Black n Mild, but our man unpacked the tobacco and filled it with marijuana. shout out. I guess. you probably shouldn't drive a vehicle like that. He said something about trading Crochet but I didn't understand the west side accent immediately. We agreed the hitting coach might be pretty good, "those guys in Baltimore can hit" they sure can. I plagiarized points I read on SoxTalk in order to impress the mailman. Thanks, guys. He was less interested in the Rule 5 draft discussion. I said 'you gotta let the kids play' and he agreed. I appreciate the team telling me Austin Slater was a major league contract, that certainly influenced the discussion. "yeah he played in Baltimore but what about Wilfred Veras bro." I digress again. Colson should 'earn' the spot, sure, but, ya know, I think he kinda earned it already because he's transcended his draft slot; and yes, I am also thinking about an arbitrary timeline. What's that got to do with Rick Hahn specifically? 4 years to finish university is also an arbitrary timeline, but people seem to be OK with that. Sometimes it takes longer, but occasionally brilliant people finish it in 2 years. In this analogy, Colson just finished his 4th year. We all like smoking pot and hitting on girls, Colson, but it's time to join the workforce, pal. Rick Hahn's problem is that he's an antisocial dumbass from Winnetka who simply doesn't understand how baseball works. Sounds like everybody's former manager in a way. Baseball is moving toward these guys making the league sooner. If Colson debuts at 25, that's sort of a problem, I think. Have you ever heard of a good baseball player that debuted with a receding hairline? I wrote some more relevant points, but I deleted them. They might be relevant in this thread later. Something to do with Vaughn and Ramos and velocity. I think the mailman bit was funnier. We can wait and see on Montgomery but I think he's gonna be pretty good. Just a feeling.

I see your point, it’s a good one that I don’t really dispute. I just don’t think you can start the guy off in the minors again, specifically for his development. Do I know what I’m talking about? Not really. But in a way, he needs to grow up. What is he going to learn at AAA, he needs another 600 at bats to see a fastball? The velocity difference between AAA and MLB is not that huge. I think it’s worth mentioning he crushed some flamethrowers in AFL (DL Hall). The new criticism is he can’t hit anything inside. I don’t know dude. Do any of us? It’s fun to talk about anyway. I like to point out what I think is a contradiction on fan thought in the “rushing” of a player.

Maybe not. I’m not sure if Colson is ready for the majors. I just don’t think you can call it “being rushed” when he qualifies for a rule specifically created to prevent teams from stashing their prospects in the minors forever. Most of the big name high school guys from his class haven’t debuted yet but I suspect they will debut next year. Colson was also a year older than the typical HS kid (why he’s even rule 5 eligible, right?). It’s not a rush, we all expected him last year, he’s out of time as far as I’m concerned (and I suspect the White Sox and Colson Montgomery agree).

The venue holds like ten people. This is honestly so funny.

thirsty thursday is alive and well in berkeley

It's not a prediction of anything. I'm offering an example of how, frankly, none of us really know what we are talking about in regards to Montgomery's development, outside of what is reported, ie the fastball issue and his back. And general pessimism about the Sox ability to develop players. You might've been saying the same thing about Merrill based on looking at a baseball-reference page was my point. And the point is certainly not that he will be as good as Merrill based on a projection of AA numbers or that they 'comp' on anything related to baseball tools, simply that one ought to not judge a 22-year-old's "readiness" based on some minor league numbers. You prefer he hit 2.000 OPS, right, but there's also reason to believe he was playing hurt and it was affecting him, considering the numbers were trending up the last month at Charlotte and in AFL. Can't put a ton of stock in that sample size, but there's an argument to make. .700ish OPS is not terrible anyway, just not what we expected. The actual point I wanted to make in this thread is that we can't call a guy "rushed" when he's rule 5 eligible! Sink or swim time, Monty! I think he's gonna be just fine.

AA, pal. And 2023, not 2024. Disappointing that you replied without actually reading the post.

Well right, it sounds like we agree. If all of Colson's options are used, he probably just sucks at baseball. What's the point in waiting until a mid-season call up to find out? To win a couple extra games with a 30something SS with no trade value? Seems like you're actually hampering the player's development by starting him off with a staff he definitely won't finish the season with; plus it's just offensive. I'd take it personally. Get him around the major league team ASAP and the new coaching staff. I'm genuinely surprised that people think he is being rushed, he's practically graying. By the way, Jackson Merrill OPS'd considerably lower than Colson in AA in 2023 and was rewarded with a major league call-up. How'd that work out for the Padres. I think they're comparable players. Same draft class, both high schoolers, both play 'defense-first' positions and had similar prospect rankings. Not a 1:1 comparison, but he had a mediocre AA season then immediately had an excellent MLB season.

oh that's hilarious! "hey internet, how much should we pay Severino?"

Where'd you see those? I opened the application but couldn't find it.

It's fairly arbitrary but there was also a league-mandated deadline to add him to the roster. I don't think it's about 'earning' it so much as he has run out of time to be babied and he should prove that he's an MLB player. I don't think you can say a guy is being rushed if he makes it to rule 5 eligibility. Especially someone with his supposed credentials and in an environment where guys are making the majors earlier than ever before. He's been in MILB forever, it's time to show something. At this point, it's on the player, and I suspect Colson thinks so too. I just think every party involved, Colson, the team, the fans wants to see him make the opening day roster and I don't see a good argument why he shouldn't make it. Or why the entire roster shouldn't be 25 or younger. If he really sucks, fine, option him, but nobody rushed him to the majors. There's a contradiction between two common fan perspectives: "why are these old bums playing over the kids?" and "why are these kids being rushed when old bums could be playing?". Two reasonable, context-specific questions, but what is gained by signing Jose Iglesias? so Colson can 'earn' it? Strikes me as poor management, a good way to piss off a player the organization holds in high esteem. That almost certainly affects job performance. What happens to Colson if he makes the opening day roster and blows it? His back is going to explode and he'll fall into a deep, Steve Blass-esque depression? Is everybody already writing off Jackson Holliday and his sub.600 OPS?