iamshack

QUOTE (shipps @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 09:32 AM) The only rationale I could have against WAR in certain scenarios is that a team may be in a situation that they are desperately in need of a bat. A guy like Melky may hold more value to that team for their line up with his offensive potential and not care as much about his defensive and base running but it still doesn't change the fact that his WAR is still the best representation of his over all value in general. Well you also factor in that the postseason is a different animal than the regular season. WAR is designed to value a player over the length of a 162 game season. But if you recognize that the postseason brings entirely different strategies, because of the days off, and the importance of each game, then you quickly understand how a guy might be able to provide more value to your team in the postseason than in the regular season. I believe Melky can add some value there as a late inning pinch hitter.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 09:12 AM) The trick with these deals is that you're paying in the latter years money that you spend in the early years to put yourself over the top. Anything you get in the out years is gravy - you need to put yourself over the top in years 1-4 if you're signing a deal like that. You just don't want to sign the guy to 5/$50 million a year to do it, so you spread it out into 10/$300. If you're signing one...be ready to win in years 1-4. Agreed, although if you could sign anyone of these guys to the 5/250 deal, it might be worth it, because you'll likely be eating a ton of money at the end of the deal anyways. You can always utilize any number of financial instruments behind the scenes to alter the risk profile anyways.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 09:09 AM) For starters, RBI is the most useless statistic in the game of baseball. In 2003, Barry Bonds hit .341/.529/.749/1.278 with 45 homers. He had 90 RBI. If you tell me he wasn't the best hitter in the game of baseball that year, I will be OK if I never talk baseball with you again. Secondly, that year you're talking about, he hit .298/.333/.493 with 21 homers. That was included. Of course, he was one of the worst defensive players in the majors, so that was rightly taken out. Thus, he was a slightly below average player, though an above average hitter. Third, Melky Cabrera is a doubles hitter. He is not fast, he does not have a lot of power, he is not a great base runner, he is a below average defender, and he doesn't have much of an arm. He is a below average regular. He is a good hitter! But he is about a 1 WAR player. There is a reason he is a starter on the worst team in the AL and that he has not been moved yet. In the end, if you don't want to pay attention to WAR, that's fine, but it's widely accepted and used statistic in today's game. I get what you and Kalapse are saying, and I fully agree with you, except that there HAS to be some understanding that these metrics are always evolving and becoming more accurate. There also needs to be an understanding that there ARE other things players bring to the table that are not fully quantifiable. Players should be given credit for those attributes as well. Just like a guy like Bonds, who was a complete douche canoe, somehow managed to sour half the teams in the League on him despite being the world's best hitter for several years (although he did cheat). So yes, Melky isn't an outstanding player. He does play substandard defense, he doesn't hit for power. He doesn't steal bases. He doesn't draw a ton of walks, etc. That all being said, he is a professional hitter, he doesn't strike out much, he does have a decent arm, and he tends to be a tough out late in ballgames. He hits well with RISP and late and close. I get that a hitter doesn't control who is on base when he comes to the plate and I get that he doesn't control whether a pitcher pitches to him (ala Bonds), but it should not be DISCOUNTED if he actually tends to succeed when provided with those opportunities. Melky, at least in his recent tenure with the White Sox, does just that. Melky is also a good clubhouse presence. The guy constantly enjoys himself and helps other guys enjoy himself. That has value. Again, this is not meant to say that we should throw out his WAR numbers, but there ARE other considerations. In certain cases, such as with Melky, perhaps those considerations may come into play a bit.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 09:02 AM) Right but the contract being discussed is like 10 years 300 million. I mean, if he wanted to double dip and do a heyward esque 10 year 300 million with the first 4 years earning him $40 million with an opt-out, then I'd be happy. But Giancarlo Stanton is still pretty good and it's already an issue. I just don't know Yeah, I mean there is virtually no one in baseball that it would be wise to hand out a contract of that length for, unless of course you extend a guy in pre-arb or something.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 08:58 AM) Well and he's 18 too, so scouting reports are going to be mixed. Pretty much what I'm saying is that someone using the Marlins return for David Phelps to say that the White Sox should have gotten more from the Yankees is total BS. Not if you are someone who still likes Hernandez, which apparently there are still some that do. I am assuming Jeff Passan talks to some folks who have reasonable opinions .

QUOTE (iWin4Ron @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 08:48 AM) Wouldn't Andrew McCutchen be the ideal sign for us? Shouldn't require a Machado $$$, yet plays CF and I think he plays good/greaat defense (??). Too old.

QUOTE (GermanSock @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 08:22 AM) About time that a team pays analytics people. Most other teams take data analysts that would make 100K in a big company and pay them 40K to work 80 hours a week. They still do it because it is working in baseball and they are not doing a bad job but why not pay ten super qualified guys 500K each? 5M is a lot of money but teams are paying that to 38 year old washed up pitchers with a 4.5 ERA. Every team can afford that and such a team is probably easily getting that money back (by not signing the washed up pitcher:)). Every team could afford that not just the Dodgers. Yeah that was my take as well...not that you need 5 GMs in your FO but I think the strategic thinking/analysis as well as coaching and development are things that are not properly valued by the market.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 07:55 AM) http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...amp;position=OF Ahh, I was looking at pipeline. Looks like some of the shine has come off of him since the initial scouting reports and his signing...seems like some people still really like him while others are turned off by his performance.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 08:05 AM) Here's the problem with spreading it around. We have something like 10 starting pitcher candidates, who by 2021 many of them barring injury are going to need stints in the big leagues to see if they're worth anything. We may still add a veteran "hold this together" guy to the rotation, but until some of them flop we have more than enough arms to not need to sign anyone. Now let's go to the lineup. We have guys in the top 100 who play: 2 outfield spots (Rutherford and Jiminez), 2b, Anderson, our most recent draft pick plays 3b as of now (moveable?), and a couple guys who catch. Not all of these guys are going to succeed. One or two may drop out by the time they get to AAA. But a lot of them are going to make the big leagues. Not all of them are going to succeed when they make the big leagues. Someone in there is likely to get 3 years of time in the big league roster and Gordon Beckham this thing. But how are we going to know which one if we don't give them the time to see? Counting positions and temporarily ignoring DH, we've got 1b (maybe filled if someone moves there), CF (maybe filled by someone for defensive purposes), and C (maybe Collins comes around?). In other words...almost all of our positions have someone who by 2019 or 2020 at the latest there will be a kid taking over. And that isn't counting guys who are here and having decent success now like Garcia. Those kids will not all succeed. You and I both know that. But if you sign someone to block a player, you're either saying you're moving a guy or that you're giving up and trading a guy. There just aren't a lot of positions right now where we don't have an heir apparent. To me, that means that planning to "Spread the money around" on paper does not work with these Sox. If you're thinking it'd be great to sign a $15 million corner OF, $15 million infielder, and 2 $15 million starters, I'm going to ask where you're putting the guys they're blocking. On paper, I think the "huge splash" makes more sense. Find me a guy who slots into our #3 or #4 slots in the lineup and dominates at a single position, then put the 7 rookies who need playing time around him and see what happens. Yeah, I mean I guess in a few more years we will know a lot more, but you are right...there is going to be some opportunity costs borne by us for having so many kids that need reps. And that's ok..it is a small price to pay for the rebuild. I think if you can get a guy that can help stabilize and legitimize your team, I think it's worth it, but you've got to be careful about who that guy is. Harper, no doubt, he is that guy. Machado...hmm, not so sure. As stated earlier, I am really starting to come around on Arenado being the guy.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 07:20 AM) I really wanted to dream big with Machado, but I honestly can't imagine having so much money tied to a single player. Whomever pans out from this rebuild we'll probably be pretty attached to and it would be pretty rough to trade/let those players go so that we can have a 30+ year old machado. But that is long ways hypothetical. Machado will only by going into his age 27 year in 2019.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 07:03 AM) Those guys require long term deals. I'm fine taking some good vets on a more expensive 1-yar deal, but I want financial flexibility for when we actually know what our needs are. Obviously I'd love Harper, but that's a loooong shot. Not sure about Machado. Have no desire to get Donaldson. Think I am firmly entrenched in the Arenado camp the following season. I think the timing is better.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 04:24 PM) That Kanny lineup is something On August 1 I think I will buy the monthly Milb package. They don't always show their games, but they do show some.

Rutherford grounds out sharply to first on his first PA, advances runner on second to third.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 03:58 PM) I'm on phone but did anyone read the BP updated report on Giolito? Made me feel better. Yes. Still likes him a lot but also said he's likely more of a mid-rotation guy now.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 03:36 PM) Still waiting to hear anyone not affiliated with the Sox say that Collins looks better on defense. In a recent chat, KLaw said he has heard absolutely nothing about Collins improving Off topic, but that dude's newsletters or emails or whatever are such a waste of time...does he ever actually say anything about baseball? One of them was all about his prescription anti-anxiety medication.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 03:17 PM) Brayan Hernandez was the best prospect the Marlins received for David Phelps. He is a 40 FV player. The Marlins got squadoosh for Phelps. Where do you see that? Because I see him as a 50 FV. The trade has been praised on the Marlins end by Passan and others.

QUOTE (KnightsOnMintSt @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 03:11 PM) I think that Rutherford is just so far away. and the Yankees think that they can win now, so they were willing to trade a good prospect since he is so far away still. And it was from an area of strength.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 02:31 PM) Sounds like he was the main piece that they were offering in a proposed Q deal as well but the Sox wanted the Eloy package instead. Obviously there's a ton more that goes into all that, just funny how things work out. Oh, gotcha.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 02:25 PM) Tommy Kahnle is a top 10 reliever in baseball this year, Robertson is a proven closer and Frazier hit 40 homeruns last year, they got all 3 of these guys because the Sox wanted a guy with a .733 ops in low A ball this year. Oversimplifying stuff is fun(this isn't a shot at you steven, it's just an easy thing to do). Like wite said, this can go either way, just depends how you feel about it. I said it earlier but it is funny to me that the guy the Sox coveted so much is one they've seemingly passed on twice in the last year. Not a shot at him at all, it's just crazy how things work out. I've seen you mention the passing on him twice thing a few times now...I know we passed on him once in the draft, but what is the second time you are referring to?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 02:13 PM) See, I think you can make arguments for either side. The White Sox were looking at a guy in Frazier who was probably going to be worth a C- prospect, and Robertson maybe a C+/B- prospect if the Sox pick up half of his salary, and combining those two might get you both of the other prospects that you'd get. I don't think you're getting Rutherford for those two combined. Meanwhile, the Sox traded Tommy Kahnle who has literally been good for half a season. Given, he has been very, very good, like among the best relievers in the game, but it's half a season regardless, and they hardly gave up anything to get him, so if his inclusion gets you an A prospect plus a B- prospect and a C prospect, then I think it's worth it. On the other hand, Robertson and Kahnle are both still very good relievers and Frazier was still putting up positive value despite barely cracking the Mendoza line. The Sox got a very talented prospect in Rutherford but he's still in low-A plus a couple of other flyer sort of prospects, so yeah, you can say the Yankees won that deal. Frankly, the Sox got a guy they coveted so it's hard for me to say they lost that deal in the short-term, but I get how you can say they didn't win the deal or they perhaps didn't maximize value. Ultimately, that is what I conceded yesterday. If they really believe in him, fabulous. They obviously do this for a living, while I sit on the couch. One minor gripe: It is IRRELEVANT that the White Sox paid very little for Tommy Kahnle. That has absolutely nothing to do with his market value. The White Sox paid an immense price for Gordon Beckham, and yet his market value was very little (despite them getting a decent little prospect back for him from the Angels). It works both ways.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 02:02 PM) https://www.milb.com/milb/news/toolshed-sta...116/t-185364810 Last 3 years runs are 0.95, Homeruns are 0.76 and hits are 1.00 so it looks to be about neutral, though it also suppresses homeruns. Awesome, thanks! So Charleston is a .493 for home runs...theoretically he should hit a few more bombs in Kannapolis than he would have in Charleston.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 01:46 PM) This is an interesting take by Jeff Ellis on some of Blake Rutherford's struggles:http://www.scout.com/mlb/scouting/story/1792445-white-sox-yankees-trade Blake Rutherford is the gem of this deal. I had him as the number one player in the 2016 draft, because I believed strongly in his hit tool. There has been talk about issues with his power production this year and how he has been merely average in low A. First off, Charleston is one of, if not the worst, places to hit home runs in the minors. Rutherford’s home runs might be down, but he has 20 doubles on the year, which shows he is still hitting the ball hard. It is a horrible place for hitters in general, so I have little concern about a kid in his second year in the minors being a league average batter in a park that suppresses everything. Rutherford has mostly played center, but his future is in left field, where I think the bat will play. His approach is still strong, and I would expect to see his numbers trend upward now that he is out of Charleston. This deal was mostly about Rutherford, but I still think he is one of the top 30 prospects in baseball. The White Sox turned a rental, a reclamation project, and an overpriced reliever into another high ceiling potential middle of the lineup type of bat; that is a win, for me. It's nice to hear that stuff about the park factors. I did see his away splits were much better. Is Kannapolis a hitting-friendly environment, a pitching-friendly environment, or fairly neutral?

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 01:50 PM) You can say what you want on the deal(and I've said my piece) but saying the Yanks no longer had high hopes for Rutherford after drafting him just last year is absurd. Cashman made it pretty clear that is not how he felt about Rutherford, although I concede it isn't customary for a FO to trash a prospect when they move him. That said, the reaction I have heard among the industry "talent evaluators" has been that the Yankees got the best of us in this trade. There has, however, been people that tend to gravitate more towards the value of prospects that think the White Sox were the clear winners. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, and we'll find out what Kahnle becomes in NY and if Rutherford ever becomes anything in Chicago.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 01:38 PM) Hope everyone saw that Nats won't trade a top prospect even for Justin Wilson, who has more value than DRob No Robles/Fedde/Soto... Doesn't mean they won't actually do it...but would you have taken Kieboom for Robertson?

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 01:28 PM) I think the piece would have been a bit better if he identified the "safer" prospect alternatives that Hahn could have targeted instead, and I'm not sure who those guys are supposed to be (and as pointed out a few posts above, many of the supposed "safer" guys have struggled this year, and even a guy like Benintendi has just been OK). But of the seven in that article, if one is a star, three are good to pretty good, and the rest bust we'd be in good shape. Yeah, I agree, it should have been a bit more thorough considering the nature of the point he was trying to make, but it is thought-provoking if nothing else.