Eminor3rd

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 12:39 PM) Can you read? I was implying that the statement you made is in stark contrast with what you're saying elsewhere. But maybe I CAN'T read. That would make sense, because it would explain why you seem to be contradicting yourself so much. It could my poor comprehension.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 11:39 AM) They're going to haggle whenever things get serious, but both sides know the general level of value & they're not going to get so far out of hand as to create a bad relationship. I highly doubt any contender wants to sour things with a FO that looks like it will spend at least part of the next 2 seasons acting as a seller. What like "Castellanos for Reed" out of hand? I'm starting to think that 'The Ultimate Champion' actually a small team of posters acting independently.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 11:24 AM) On July 20th Mike Illitch will turn 84. Question, do you think he gives one single s*** about what some unproven minor league is going to do 2-3 years from now? Obviously he doesn't want to set his organization back, but he wants a ring & he can't just wait around forever. Then he gets Papelbon and pays money to give up less talent. They aren't trading Castellanos for Reed. It's a stupid decision and there are better options, even if they are going to be reckless as you assume. Castellanos for Reed wouldn't even hold up in an ESPN discussion, there's just no argument for it.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 10:20 AM) We'll say good arsenal then. He can throw 5 different pitches and, with the variations he can throw of his stuff, it really can equate to about 25 different looking pitches. I mean, seriously, if he didn't have his cutter and then one of his offspeed pitches, he'd be f***ed, no matter his command and control. Agreed

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 10:27 AM) Is Crain a better option? This is a guy who has never been a closer. Great set up guys don't always make great closers. Reed isn't exactly a great closer either. He's a decent closer with upside. Also, if they don't believe in Crain, they can still pay less for Papelbon by absorbing the contract.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 10:09 AM) You are thinking with a logical baseball brain. We are talking about the Tigers who paid more than they need to for Fielder. BTW these type of deals happen in pro sports all of the time. Not when there's a better option available. Again, why overpay for Reed when you can pay less for Crain? If the Tigers want nothing but NOW, they ar ebetter off with Crain.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 09:45 AM) But the great change-up was always a plus pitch. However, no, he wasn't in the same category as Floyd or 2005-06 Contreras or 2004-2005 Freddy Garcia or anything like that. He was just, for lack of a better description, a pure pitcher and not a thrower who was usually one step ahead of opposing hitters, always keeping them off balance and changing speeds. To be able to have 3-4-5 different fastball speeds (even in the 80's) is more important than throwing a flat 93 mph fastball over and over again. No doubt. Excellent pitcher. I'm just arguing the word use. Stuff/Command/Control/etc.

I understand what you mean, but I don't think it's accurate to say that MB has ever had good "stuff." I think it IS accurate to say Buerhle had both very good control (locating) and very good command (control of movement). I think people usually mean velocity and sharp break when they refer to stuff.

Ugly wins. woo

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 09:27 AM) What if the Tigers feel that Addison Reed is the difference between a first round out, and the World Series? Then they get Crain for cheaper and have an even better short-term upgrade.

Slider is sharp but he just can't control any of it.

Lol you're trolling me, right? You argue that trading valuable contributors for prospects is stupid. Then you argue that we should trade Reed for prospects. Then you argue that Reed sucks so it's laughable to want to keep him. Then you argue that Reed should be able to fetch one of the highest-rated hitting prospects in the game.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 25, 2013 -> 06:13 PM) "Other teams say the Tigers are willing to surrender top prospects Nick Castellanos or Avisail Garcia if necessary. The team is focused on finding a closer." So there. That has nothing to do with Addison Reed. Again, why do you think the Tigers team of professionals scouts and administrators are going to overrate Reed when we won't?

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 25, 2013 -> 03:22 PM) LOL If we're playing the Tigers & we're down in the 9th then we're already f***ed as it is. And if you mean Reed helping them beat other teams and helping their record while we're good.... do you really think that in 2-3 years (when you think we'll be good again) Reed will be sooooo good that he'll be a difference maker for that team? Do you not believe that the Tigers could, and would, acquire another closer equally as good in the meantime? Reed may not even be in baseball 2 years from now for all we know. This isn't Sale we're talking about. This is like a total layup and the Sox FO is the WNBA all-star team. There's no way they should be able to screw this one up. BTW, what happens if the Tigers get Reed from us and win a WS this year? Does that negatively affect us? Not really, no. Not if you don't think we're going to be good next year. We'd miss the payroll spike. OTOH, what happens if the Tiggers trade us an all-star for 6 years & they get a halfway decent closer for a couple years who eventually gets hurt/becomes ineffective and is non-tendered? Because that happens all the time with closers. We'd be looking at a deal that Tigers fans would lament for years, and a deal that would be part of the foundation of the legacy Hahn should be trying to build. This is a great f***ing situation for us & it's like half the board wants to be Debbie Downer over Addison Reed. ADDISON REED! LOL Wait aren't you arguing vehemently in another thread about how trading for prospects sucks and they always bust? Guess what? We're not getting f***ing Castellanos for Reed. Obviously if someone wants to vastly overpay for him, let's do it -- but I'm arguing generally against filling our direct competitors' biggest holes with our cost-controlled talent with upside.

Why do you all assume that we know more about our players than Major League front offices do? No one is going to be tricked here. They know what Reed is, they know what Crain is. If they believe Crain has changed, they'll want him. If they think it's luck, they won't. All the same applies to Reed. Their scouts will determine how they see our players, the market (how many buyers are interested) will dictate their costs.

I don't think you can send Reed to the Tigers. He's pre-arb. You don't want to give a direct competitor something that's going to hurt you for years down the line. They would have four years of control -- I expect us to be competitive again in 2 or 3. Now, Crain, that's fine. They can hurt us this year all they want, and Crain will a FA or a bad contract by next summer.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2013 -> 03:40 PM) IMO, there is zero reason to do this. The Sox have a ton of money coming off the books this offseason and a loaded pitching staff even if Peavy is dealt including a legit #1 starter. They need help to get there. They have hard decisions to make, but they can be competitive next year. And really, Trayce is still young, still raw, and I'm going to be furious when they call him up to AAA in a couple weeks. I think the team needs to be patient with him, let him have a full year in AA, then start next year in AAA and either earn a callup or come up if someone gets hurt. If Rios isn't dealt, there will be a need for an OF after 2014. Maybe more than 1, depending on De Aza's arb schedule and if/when they give up on Viciedo. I still think 2015 looks better. There's way more money off the books then, and some of our prospects should be useful. Plus, I think Konerko is done. That's production we've been taking for granted that must be replaced before this team can win, IMO.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2013 -> 03:18 PM) I think we're at a point where we have to trade some of these guys. Obviously Crain and Thornton must be moved, they're free agents at the end of the year assuming Matt's option isn't picked up, so the Sox can weigh the prospect received for them against "absolutely nothing". IMO, the fact that the Sox are sitting on six starters (successful alliteration) suggests that they should seriously think of selling someone like Peavy as well, as although he's not a FA at the end of this year, if they move any of their starters to the bullpen they will lose some value on that starter, which counts as an additional negative if no move is made. A guy like De Aza, Rios, Ramirez, guys we have no replacement for...those are the guys you need to really take into account the bust rate. You might get a guy back that the whole website really likes and then be screwed because he needs longer than Hosmer/Viciedo to develop, if he ever does. I agree with most of this. However, I think you have to consider window of contention. It doesn't look like there's anyway 2014 will be good for us, so if a guy is going to be gone or less useful by 2015, I'd move him now while his value is high. I think Rios should go. His value won't ever be higher and all of our high-ish upside close-to-the-majors reinforcements are OF. If we're going to win 2015 and later, our homegrown talent will have to develop regardless, and that's where we're positioned to have it develop the most. If all those guys bust, we weren't going to pull it off anyway. Alexei is harder to replace unless you really believe in Sanchez.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2013 -> 03:08 PM) But what the front office needs to do when making these decisions is evaluate the possible downside risk. That's what drives us crazy, people name prospect after prospect, even people who aren't drafted, and salivate over them like they're Bryce Harper. People want the team to lose coming into seasons so that they can draft people, and the day after the draft they say "boy look how great the system of team Cubs is these days, they're going to be unstoppable". Everything in baseball tells us the exact opposite; we don't ever want to be in the boat of trading people away wholesale for prospects because the bust rate means there's a 3/4 chance we're going to lose that deal, maybe worse. Trading away a guy we don't need to trade away, like Sale, has to take that bust rate into account. Even if you list the 5 great Cardinals prospects, I sit here and think "ok, the odds are that 2 of them won't make the bigs, 2 of them won't develop as promised, and maybe we get 1 really good player out of that". For me, that's unacceptable. This is the reason you don't want to have to rebuild like this. It's terrible. It's the person working for minimum wage at McDonalds blowing their rent money on lottery tickets. We're in a position right now where we have left ourselves no choice because of how crappy the team is playing right now. Fine, I can deal with those moves, but every time people salivate over prospect list x from team y, they do so while pretending Eric Hosmer never happened. I agree with you. When you compare rebuilding to winning, no one wants to rebuild. But that's not the situation we have here. We have to compare rebuilding to losing, because we have a losing team with not nearly enough upside to expect substantial improvement. IMO, if you are arguing against rebuilding this current team, you are arguing that there is a quicker path to contention, meaning that our current players will play substantially better in the future. Do you think this team can win next year if we don't trade anyone? Are we a free agent signing or two away? I just don't see it. It's not fun, but it's the only way.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 21, 2013 -> 02:59 PM) You are missing the obvious thing that even though something is a pretty clear pattern, you may have no idea why. No, I'm not. I said that in a different post, I think. My point is that if you don't know something, you can't use it to make a decision, so it's useless to consider it a factor. Whether it is random or not, it ACTS as randomness. Again, two separate points are being made here: (1) if FO CAN know more about futures but doesn't, FO is incompetent and should be fired, (2) if randomness in the outcome is unavoidable, a decision can only be judged based on the information available at the time. That doesn't mean it isn't the FO's responsibility -- they made a decision that had a chance of going either way. To say they are accountable is different than to say their decision was a bad one. If I lose a bet that I have a 99% chance to win, did I make a bad decision taking the bet? No, it was a good bet, I just got beat on it, and I have to deal with the consequences.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2013 -> 02:49 PM) The problem here is the type of trade we're talking about. When Colon was traded to Montreal, he was a few months from free agency. He was a guy the Indians had to choose between keeping and trying to compete or losing at the end of the year. They were 10 games under .500 or so and were looking at losing the guy soon. That's comparable to a guy like Crain, Thornton, maybe Peavy on this roster...guys who are close to free agency. In that case, the bust rate compares to the virtual certainty of losing those guys for nothing. If you trade crain for a guy who never makes the big leagues, that's a scouting fail, but at least you got something for him. When we talk about Chris Sale on the other hand, he's a guy locked up for the next half a decade. There is nothing forcing us to trade Chris Sale, the only reason we should trade Chris Sale is if there's a high probability it would make the team better in the long run. If you trade Sale for 4 prospects, 2 of whom become average major leaguers and 2 of whom bust, you've cost the team an ace for a couple average major leaguers. In that case, the bust rate needs to be compared with the benefit of having a guy who can be the ace of the staff for the next 5 1/2 seasons. Certainly. I don't advocate trading Chris Sale at all. I just wanted to point out that it's useless to expect FO to use information from the future to evaluate the present.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 21, 2013 -> 02:47 PM) There is a reason why certain teams have more success with prospects than others. It's not blind luck that so many young Royals suck at baseball, while St. Louis can call up anybody from the minors and he seems to produce immediately. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 21, 2013 -> 02:48 PM) Then how can you hold the FO responsble? If it's random luck that he sucked, it's not their fault. Three times now I've said that if you can learn something to help your talent evaluation, hindsight makes sense. If you believe that the White Sox are bad at evaluating talent or bad at developing talent, we're having a separate discussion. That IS a factor. However, randomness is certainly also a big factor, evidenced by how often players bust for every team. People in this thread have NOT been saying we shouldn't trade for prospects because the Sox suck at prospects, they've been saying we shouldn't trade for prospects because they seem to bust too often. These are very different things.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 21, 2013 -> 02:39 PM) By your logic, you can't evaluate draft picks in hindsight either. You draft a guy on probability, if he doesn't flourish in your system, it happens sometimes, oh well. No. Please read everything I've said. If you can use hindsight to find reliable predictors of future events, you are finding something worthwhile. But if you can deduce nothing, you have no choice but to consider the events to have occurred randomly or by something undetectable. Example: If no one can tell you why Adam Dunn sucks, it's not fair to fault someone for not predicting that Adam Dunn sucks when he didn't suck before. Same thing with prospects. Why has Hosmer busted? If you can find a good reason, you should go work for a baseball team. Otherwise, you can't say you wouldn't have loved him too because EVERYONE thought he was exhibiting the signs of a stud.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 21, 2013 -> 02:34 PM) Looking back it would be a haul of garbage. If you traded for Hosmer in 2010 thinking you had the 1B of the baseman of the future, you set that position back several years because he sucks. No one will care that he was highly rated at the time, a bust is a bust. That's surface-level, factual information, but it's useless for any type of decision-making. If you could tell me WHY he was a bust and how you could have known, then it's useful. Otherwise, it's random happenstance. You make a deal for prospects that have a good chance to succeed and a good chance to fail because you HAVE to. It's the only way to acquire affordable talent. You take a risk. Just because Hosmer busted doesn't mean it was LIKELY he'd bust. People thought he was among the safest prospects around. Even if you have an 80% chance to win, you're going to lose 20% of the time. You can cherry-pick busts all you want, but for every horrible trade there's a great one too. The Indians traded Bartolo Colon for Cliff Lee, Brandon Phillips, and Grady Sizemore. They all had a chance to bust or hit, and it turned out that they all hit. You don't evaluate their decision to trade an aging star player for three lottery tickets based on whether or not the lottery tickets hit. If I buy a f***ing scratch off ticket today and win $50,000, that doesn't make me a financial genius. Judge me on the fact I decided to spend a dollar on a 1 in a million chance to win more.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 21, 2013 -> 02:25 PM) Actually that is how they should be evaluated. It doesn't matter one bit what the trade looked like when you made it, it matters what the players turned into. It would be like saying that Adam Dunn was a great signing for the Sox in 2011, no matter what happened after that, because the move made sense at the time. I disagree strongly. Hindsight is only valuable if you can identify factors that will apply to future decisions. If there was something about Adam Dunn that would have been a reliable red flag that the Sox overlooked, that's their fault. If his descent was truly unpredictable, however, it's a waste of time to blame people for it. There was ALWAYS a chance that he turned into a pumpkin and always chance he turned into a HOF player -- neither were likely outcomes. The White Sox FO is responsible for taking the calculated risk that they did. In Dunn's case, it was much more likely he would be good than bad (from the information WE have as fans, anyway. It is reasonable to expect the team to have a better set of data, but not reasonable to expect them to have a crystal ball). Since that is all the information that was available at the time, that's all the information that can be used to evaluate the decision. Hindsight is now valuable if it can provide better information for the future, which it sometimes cannot. The White Sox FO is responsible for the consequences because they made the call to roll the dice. But they didn't do something stupid, they made a gamble that looked safe at the time. If you want to evaluate the deal, evaluate the probabilities that were on the table at the time.