michelangelosmonkey

I would think Engel plays a fair bit as the starter, and yes, comes in most games in the 7th inning as a defensive replacement. And yes, I think Vaughn has a chance to be a hall of fame hitter. IF we can develop him so he can play multiple positions he is even more valuable. I mean honestly we talk about these guys like they are car parts...you can't put the carburetor where the windshield wiper goes. These are human athletes that play baseball. Vaughn never played outfield before and they put him out there and he was OK. As he figures out angles and positioning he should be better. To just categorically say...too slow...he will be terrible...I think is unfair. I also think it is unfair to say Eloy will always be a terrible outfielder. These are 24 year old athletes and they should get better with experience. Look at Tim Anderson...he was NOT a good short stop in the minors but he was newish at baseball....he was a -1.5dWar in 2017 and now he's a +1dWar. There's a chance for hope. At the same time there are plenty on here that want to pay Nick Casellanos, the 30 year old with a career -10dWar, and there is NO CHANCE he is going to develop into an OK fielder. I would take Vaughn over NC for many reasons.

1) Verlander in Detroit in his 34th year pitched 170 inning with a 4.1 FIP which was his worst in a decade. 2) Poor old Custer 3) clearly the trade was consummated on the 10th but it was in the works, I suspect, for weeks. 4) I use WAR...and he was at 1.9 the year before. Yes he had a down year but not a terrible year...and was off to a strong start in 2016. Listen...you win the argument because it turned out badly...and because of the lottery ticket...historically badly. My only point is you can go find instances where getting a 34 year old pitcher turned out good. Trading assets for Bassitt has every chance of being Shields 2.0. Or it could turn out great. It's only after the fact that we can be confidently right or wrong. (Note I didn't like the trade at the time...mostly because I was optimistic about Eric Johnson...wrong and stupid).

1) So was Verlander...and then he had a resurgence. 2) I think fate forced the White Sox to go for it...no one thought Sale would be THAT good, no one thought Quintana was anything. Rodon was looking great as a rookie. Abreu and Eaton looked like stars and they started out 24-12. We are mad that they went for it? No we are mad Shields sucked. 3) They were making the trade in the midst of their hot run...way before trade deadline. A top four of Sale, Q, Rodon and Big game was tantalizing. 4) He wasn't a turd...he was a very good 3-4 starter. The owner was mad he wasn't Chris Sale because he paid him like Chris Sale. 5) They didn't HAVE to win the division...just make the playoffs...and ride a couple of stud pitchers to the WS like Arizona did a few years before with Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling. The trade was only moronic because they threw in a lottery ticket that happened to be the Powerball winner. Never, ever put a powerball ticket in a birthday card. It can only turn out badly.

I feel like we have a potential all-star at 7 of 9 positions...he's not wrong. Go get Rodon and Tepera and hold your assets to the trade deadline.

So Jack...what is worse? I feel like Vaughn catches everything he can get to...but he's super slow. With smart positioning and his improving learning curve he can be a Conforto level outfielder. Manny could get to things he just couldn't catch them....that's not fixable.

Shields had put up 19 WAR in the previous 5 seasons and had a +.7 WAR in 11 starts that year. His ERA was 3.0 after 10 starts and then he had that horrible start where he gave up 10 runs in 2 innings. You could, at the time, say that presaged a miserable decline (which it did) or you could say it was an outlier and we were getting a great 4th starter to help us reach the playoffs. It wasn't stupid...it didn't work.

Yes it's terrible about Adolfo...he's only 24 and put up an .850 OPS at Birmingham last year. I just wish they had him one more year. As for Cespedes...he put up an .800+ OPS in his first taste of baseball after being out for a year and a half. He was terrible in the AFL but SSS? The point isn't that I hate Conforto...but there is always a budget and the question is...is this the guy you want to pay $20 million a year for the next four years. You talk about offensively terrible for Cespedes...Conforto WAS terrible last year...it IS a risk that he's declining. I want the window to be open as long as it can be...part of that is not getting a big acquisition wrong...when you have potential solutions near term and long term.

You mean they were as bad as the RF the last time they won the World Series? But young and cheap and part of the future? Remember you have Engel as your defensive outfielder probably 40% of the time. Vaughn was brand new at RF and will get better. Shields is mostly a situational piece. And I know you hate this but...not one of them is as bad as Manny Ramirez in the outfield with his ten time All Star appearances and multiple World Series wins.

They didn't look terrible at the time of the trade. They were risky...as all trades are. You know how many on here were trashing the Lance Lynn trade and fitting Dane Dunning for his Cooperstown hat? Justin Verlander in 2017 looked a LOT like James Shields in 2016...but then he went back to superhuman and Shields continued to be trash. IF Shields had instead become 2018 Verlander...and you have Sale, Quintana and very promising young Rodon it could have worked. Don't get me wrong...I MUCH prefer how the White Sox have done it now...with a dozen all-star caliber players instead of four. But at the time they were trying to play the hand they were dealt...Sale/Quintana/Abreu/Eaton were too good to allow them top picks but not good enough to push them forward...so you play for the inside straight. It didn't work...oh well.

I don't get the love for Conforto....unless they get him for one year. I think three of their most interesting prospects are RF...Adolfo, Cespedes and Colas. I think there is a real chance one of them is ready for 2023 opening day. Cespedes and Colas fit in perfectly with the idea of a young team and maybe an all Cuban outfield. I think ONE season of Sheets/Vaughn/Engel would be as good as Conforto (who has not been a great fielder) and much cheaper. Vaughn needs to be hitting every day because I think he has potential to be the best hitter on a team with a lot of great hitters and having positional flexibility is the hot new concept. Use the money on Rodon and maybe offer a Montgomery/Vera ++ package for Ketel Marte to play 2b and cover for Robert in CF periodically.

Plus Rodon is a lefty. He fits their window and their rotation so perfectly. It would be a big gamble to give him 3 for $60 million but man sometimes you have to roll the dice. If he's past his injury history and comes back as a stronger version of the 2021 Rodon...man they win multiple World Series.

And they also had Sale, Quintana, Eaton and Abreu who all looked like rising stars. Sometimes you push the accelerator prematurely. Shark was coming off a 4WAR season and looked like maybe he was a rising star. Evaluating trades in retrospect is stupid. It didn't work. Neither did the Shields trade 18 months later. I think in that time Hahn/KW looked at it that if they could sneak into the playoffs with 85 wins and then get Sale and Quintana to pitch five games in each playoff series they had a shot. Never worked, oh well. Try something new. Still I agree with Two gun about the Bassitt trade...I'm just not convinced he's good. He was great in Oakland but outside of Oakland just a guy...he's going to be 33 and a free agent after this year. Give up Adolfo, Rory and one of the high school pitchers for him but not much more.

The thing that terrifies me about trading AV is looking at the comparables with Mike Schmidt. MS and AV both debuted to much acclaim at 23, each had a bit over 400 at bats, each put up a "disappointing" OPS around .700, and neither could touch right handed pitching (almost identical .610 OPS). And then, as expected Mike Schmidt at 24 began destroying baseball. I'm not saying AV will become a Hall of Famer...but it's not ridiculous to say that is his upside. Also note...MS career OPS vs RH pitchers settled in just under .900 over his next 7000 at bats. A bit of patience hoping for greatness.

Yes...that's what dWar measures. You sacrifice defense for offense. Frank Howard had a three year run with an average -3 dWAR and positive 2.5 WAR. It doesn't matter how you get your WAR. To keep suggesting that a bad defender will ruin the team is just wrong.

Yes I said the combo platter would hit .850 OPS which is not impossible given platoon advantages and obvious upside...it was you that compared them to Daniel Palka who was bad offensively and defensively. To suggest they would be legendarily bad is wrong. 1/3 of the innings will be played by an elite defender...and Vaughn who never played RF before was competent. Yes this is not perfect but neither is it terrible (and Conforto is NOT a good defender..-0.6 dWar). Anyway the larger point is you have limited resources to fix three holes...2b, RF and 5th starter. I'd rather see Combo +Rodon than Comforto + Keuchel.

That is our #1, 2 and 3 prospects. I think you are dramatically undervaluing that package based on a 19 year old #1 draft pick who looked very good in his first year in pro ball, a top 10 international prospect from two years ago who had a tough time adjusting to American ball, and a $1 prospect who after two major surgeries and sitting two years came back last year and held his own in the majors. If that package doesn't get Marte...well they can keep Marte.

I think you are dramatically overstating how bad the combo platter defense would be. Engel is an elite defender, Vaughn caught everything hit within fifteen feet of where his statue was and Sheets...is a lefty power bat. But fine, let's play your game...Manny Ramirez might have been the worst outfield every...he consistently put up -2 dwar and yet had a 4 WAR regularly. Lots of different ways to win games. What we do know about the combo platter is that it will cost $20 million less per year than Conforto and you can use that money to resign Rodon. I think Rodon >>> Keuchel vs Conforto >combo platter.

Yes I don't get the panic. Eloy puts up an .850OPS in left and the combo platter puts up an .850 OPS in right...and some extra fly balls drop in?? Oh well. I like the idea of getting Ketel. I think you can put together an attractive package to get him...Montgomery, Cespedes and Burger? Then resign Rodon and lets go win the World Series.

I agree GreenSox. It's not like our top twenty is filled with a bunch of diminishing prospects. 8 of our top ten are 21 or younger...and the top "old guys" would be Cespedes who is really in his first year in US, during COVID and is way to early to give up on, and Burger who made huge leap forward after his injuries. In fact if the analysis were not "top farm systems" but it was "rank organizational talent age 22-27" and then "rank organizational talent 18-21" I think we might be #1 in the first and top ten in the second. When building a championship window you need that second wave to hit in about two or three years...not now. I like the idea of Kath, Montgomery, Colas, Cespedes Kath, and all the 20 year old pitchers beginning to bloom this year and next for major league replacement. ,

That's not $100 million in profits...that's income from which they spend money. Still it was a bit unfair that I used the Met's as the example above.... I only used them as they are the most recently sold...but not every team is run as stupidly as the Mets. Which is one of the big problems with the CBA. All teams get $50 million in national TV money, only the Brewers and Marlins make less than $40 million in local TV money and everyone but the Marlins draws a million fans. So basically every team has $200 million in revenue with some much much more than that from which they pay their bills.. Yet you have teams like the Orioles last year that only spent $40 million in player salaries. That team is happily making good operating income...but probably not getting much in franchise asset appreciation. The value of the franchise from 2002 to 2011 only went up $100 million...or $10 million a year from a starting investment of $300 million. Lot's of other investments will get you much more than that so perhaps you need the operating income. But if you are trying to negotiate the CBA the demands of the Orioles and Tyler Nevin (random minimum salary player for Orioles) count as do the Dodgers and Max Scherzer.

I think this is what Poppy is talking about "I have drunk the Kool aid" just seems like a pointless personal attack that make message boards ugly. But yes, I think a baseball team is closer to a Picasso than a hardware store. Sure there is a value to positive operating income to some degree. Manhattan high rises don't let tenants in for free...but much of the real estate value is the tax free appreciation of scare assets. If you want to argue otherwise...Steve Cohen paid $2.5 billion for the Mets. A fair return on that investment would be 10% a year. You think the Mets made more than $250 million in profits? Last year the Met's had $230 million in player payroll. There would be all sorts of other costs..,marketing, executive staff security, etc etc. Let's just arbitrarily call it $50 million. So $300 million in total expenses They had 1.5 million in attendance at $100 game day revenue makes $150 million in income. Another $54 million in local TV. $50 million in National TV. Maybe $25 million in radio broadcasting? Where is this hidden fortune you are seeing? My numbers are just back of an envelope...I'm sure there is some kind of scholarly study done on this...but no...I don't believe there is a massive operating profit to running a team. But there IS massive value to the asset...Yankees were sold 50 years ago and are now worth $5 billion more than they were last sold for. That's $100 million annual, tax free, appreciation in their asset. THAT'S what owners care about. That and the fame they get for owning one of these rare assets.

I mean that's just bad math. 30,000 fans x $100 in game day revenue x 81 games dwarfs any other source of revenue the teams make. Fans going to the games matter a LOT. They want you at the game. And honestly...when Kopech is pitching and Robert has been on a hot streak...you want to go. I was at the Packers/Niners playoff game...that feeling you get when 80,000 fans are cheering in unison...not much in life can replicate that joy (or the collective pain when the stupid punt gets blocked and returned for a touchdown).

Honestly outside of Curt Flood (only you and I are old enough to remember this reference) the players don't give a damn about those coming after them...nor should they. When I'm negotiating my salary I am not thinking about the good of the other workers in the office, or the benefits of those in college that will come and take my job in a few years...I just want mine. In fact if I can squeeze my company with the knowledge that I will increase my personal wealth in ten years but the company will be bankrupt after I leave? Sign me up. That's the problem with the pro player argument/anti owner. Everyone is in it for themselves including the fans (we want baseball and for our teams to have a fair shot at winning occasionally) . I think really the biggest challenge is within the ownership room...Dodgers are fine with allowing unlimited free agency because they have all the money. Rays want long time control over young players because they are good at development. How do you square these things...because if you don't...the Dodgers will win every year and baseball will die from boredom.

If you look back the last thirty years White Sox attendance is about 20,000 fans a game except in years where they compete and then it would average 30,000 (rough numbers for the argument). 10,000 fans a game x $81 games x $100 a game is $81 million . If the owner businessman (I know I've argued this before in a lot of other threads) just wants to maintain a small profit (the real wealth comes from franchise appreciation) yes...tanking means they cut payroll by $80 million and contending means they raise it by $80 million. All businesses try to "bleed every cent out of you". $7 for $0.50 worth of popcorn at a movie theater? But they are all based around pricing models. Some big retailers were happy to run at a loss because their "real" business was real estate speculation. Run the business to pay the light bill and wait for the underlying asset to go up. Baseball ownership is really no different. Herb Kohl (retail genius) bought the Bucks for $18 million, lost money every year, and then sold them for $550 million. That's the game. BUT, and so many people seem lost on this, real estate CAN go down in value. If you pay $3 billion for the White Sox and baseball manages to bungle their way out of popularity...you could see your $3 billion decline to $2 billion in ten years. Some speculation that this is happening with NBA franchise values the last few years. In a sense a sports franchise is like any collectible. It is never worth its underlying asset (the stream of income from the business) but is worth things because of it's scarcity. If that asset losses its popularity (Beanie Babies, 1970's baseball cards, Crypto) the asset can plummet in value. This is ALL the owners care about...but it plays in our favor...most don't care about the nickels in annual cost/expense that is being haggled over...they care about the golden goose. In some sense this "battle" going on keeps baseball in the national debate which may be their goal. Who knows.

Poppy's right on this point. Message boards are no fun when a handful of load voices shout down debate. It's NOT an idiotic position to support the owners. There is ONE thing the owners care about...the future value of their franchises. There is ONE thing the players care about...the short term earnings from playing this sport. The owners have a much greater incentive to care about the competitiveness of the league than the players do. If the new collective bargaining agreement mean that in 15 years the value of baseball franchises will plummet...why would the players care? And this is the tricky part...you have the Dodgers with $200 million in annual revenues and the Marlins with $100 million in revenues largely because of geographic and demographic issues they don't control. Yet you need a structure that will allow the Marlins a chance to win versus the Dodgers. Meanwhile on the players side you have the Dodgers who have 4 pitchers earning a combined $125 million and a dozen players earning a combined $5 million. How do you get all those guys making $500,000 caring about the same things as Max Scherzer making $34,000,000? I should think there is no real common front on any side...the issues are hugely complicated. But i also don't think billionaire owners are idiots...and they know for them to continue to make double digit annual growth on the franchise value they have to protect the sports popularity. The players should not care about that at all. So if you want to get on one side or the other...the owners side might be closer to the fans side.